Life spared

Last week's execution in Indonesia hit world headlines.

Firstly, there was a lady, Mary Jane Veloso who was given a reprieve.  Somebody turned herself in in the Philippines, claiming that she tricked Mary Jane into carrying drugs.  Her claim is presently under confession.  It gave Mary Jane more time to live, even so.

Why did she do it?  Was it her conscience?  Her generosity?

How would Mary Jane feel about it?  Relieved?  Angry?  That she deserves the reprieve that she has been given?  Or that the reprieve is a surprise, but great blessing?

When Jesus died on the cross for us, He not only gave us a reprieve, He gave us a new life.  How do we feel about that?  Relieved?  Angry?  That we deserve this?  Or are we grateful for the blessing?

Two others who did not get a reprieve were Australians.

1. Andrew Chan was a supervisor at a catering company in Sydney.  He felt that life was not going anywhere.  He was a drug usser.  When given the chance to join a gang and use his leadership skills in the drug trade instead of being a consumer, he he took the opportunity and became a ringleader in the Bali Nine.
2. Myuran Sukumaran worked in a mailroom at the Sydney Passport Office.  He was attracted to the nightclub scene, where his friends had access to women, booze and fast, expensive cars.  He saw that he could not have this lifestyle unless he had more money.  He was also a martial arts expert.  When given the opportunity to join a gang to quicken his money-earning ability, he took it.

These guys were tempted into the illegal drug trade as they wanted to expedite their careers and their earnings.  They got arrested and tried for these activities about 10 years ago.

Interestingly, the other members of the Bali Nine received life sentences - these guys got death sentences even though they had less drugs on them.  Andrew Chan did not have any drugs on him at the time of his arrest.

Might they have thought that their sentences were unfair?  That God was unfair?  Would you have thought like that if you had been in their shoes?  Would you have been upset and remorseful and hated the world?

Chan and Sukumaran later met Jesus while in prison, awaiting their execution.  This seems to make a world of a difference to them.

1. Chan used his leadership personality to serve his fellow inmates as a Christian priest,
2. Sukumaran completed an arts course at Curtin University.  He went on to introduce education courses to his fellow inmates.  He started computer classes for them, and was about to start accounting and legal studies for them also.
3. When executed, these guys and the others were singing "Amazing Grace" and "Bless the Lord O my soul".

They could have been in despair about getting executed.  They could have felt useless and unwilling to do anything helpful in their last days.  However, they chose to live to the max in their remaining days, and bless God and the people around them.

Is this what knowing Jesus is like?  Does Jesus make a difference to you like this as well?

Muslim:Christian ratio

Christians have been a world majority for as long as I can remember.  Would it be significant if they were no longer the majority?  What do you think?

Of course, the church started off small.  Just a band of followers who claimed that Jesus rose from the dead.  Everybody else imagined the claim to be ridiculous.  Christians were by far the minority then.  Romans would throw them to the lions, trying to kill off these fanatics, but their numbers grew in spite the persecution.

Those who saw Jesus alive after His resurrection could not deny the truth.  And seeing that He has returned from the dead gave the early Christians hope and security in the hereafter.  They were not afraid to love their persecutors.  So, in spite being put to death, their numbers grew.  Others overseas, who saw and heard about what was happening wanted to believe also.  So people around the world joined this little band of followers.  Church became institutionalised and regarded as a major world religion.

Islam came along a little later.  Their growth was mostly by the sword, even though there were also those who were persuaded by their theology.  Many Muslims are Muslims because of culture too.

Rappler.com reckons that by 2050, the number of Muslims would be greater than the number of Christians.  Through birthrate,deathrate, conversions, defections and many people who have just lost interest, the percentage of Christians is in decline.  However, the number of Muslims is increasing.

Will this change affect you?  Why, or why not?  Is it a matter of "islamophobia"?

Would you believe this prediction?  There are other sources that say that the church is actually growing, and not declining.

Would a Muslim-majority world be a more harmonious world?  Or would it be filled with more violence and strife?  Would there be more love in the world?

What do you think?

Evangelism

Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said the following about evangelism:

• It isn't something you can opt out of: you just do it, even if you are not a professional.
• Do it, not out of duty, but because you love people.  Love as Jesus loves.
• It isn't about results.  Don't try to count the number of conversions or how instantaneously it happens.
• Remember that it is good news.  It is positive, happy news.
• Trust the Holy Spirit to work.
• Pray.
• Be prepared, that your conversations may only bear fruit after you leave the scene.  Give people time to absorb what has been said.
• Don't complicate things.  Only answer what has been asked.  Keep the message simple to understand.
• Always be ready to give an answer.
• Realise the importance of evangelism.

I think Welby made good points.  When we make evangelism out to be an awkward, professional task, we become awkward and unnatural as we try to present the facts to our friends.   When we do it without love as our motivation, our message does not connect as people question our motives.  We do not want to force people to convert, but to give them the opportunity to accept the grace of our Lord.

Do you think so?  Do you find evangelism awkward to do?  Awkward to be on the receiving end of?  Should evangelism be done at the edge of a sword?

Is evangelism a Christian thing, or does it belong to other people too?

Food distribution

I found it shocking to read that people were arrested when they tried to feed the hungry.  Apparently, the city find the poor and homeless to be an eye-sore, and do not wish to help them in this way.  How uncaring?

(Perhaps the city doles out welfare and assumes that to be enough.  I do not know.)  Meanwhile, equally shocking in the other extreme, is the cost that food distributors pay to put the "halal" label on their brands.  They claim that they do not pass on this cost to the consumer, but in the interest of having some profit and staying in business, it is hard to imagine how this is possible.

This sounds as bad as food distributors dumping their excess stock so to keep their prices high, rather than to use it to feed the poor.  What is our world coming to?

Having said this, I also see that some hotels and bakeries do feed the poor.  Supermarkets discount their day-old bread, while some other businesses donate the left over stock to charities and not-for-profit organisations rather than dumping.  I cheer this behaviour.

How about you?  Can you see the sense in this?  Do you think God would be pleased with the way we handle money and our attitudes towards the poor in our society?

Heaping coals of fire

In Proverbs 25:21-22, the Scriptures tell us that

If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
    if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. 
 In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
    and the Lord will reward you.

This is reiterated in Romans 12:20:

On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."

What do you think this means?

I had heard it explained before, but I could not remember, so I recently looked it up.  It means to bless your enemies.

Apparently, in a culture where one carries things on their heads and where one can ask their neighbours for anything one needs without embarrassment, one is even able to ask for fire when one's own fire goes out.  So one's neighbour would heap coals of fire for one to carry home.

How unlike us, who thinks of wanting to hurt our enemies!

We would want to think of avoiding one's enemies, or harming the enemy in some way.  But this is not the way of the Lord.  The Lord would want us to bless our enemies the way we want to bless our neighbours.  The promise is that the Lord would reward us if we do.

These proverbs are generally true.  A recent story I read was of a Japanese pilot who played a major role in the bombing of Pearl Harbor, in the battle that started World War II.  This pilot later came to know Jesus.  His change of heart led him to love his enemies, and he was rewarded.

But how unlike us, who would naturally wish to fear our enemies, or hate them, or wish bad things on them.

How would you feel towards the ISIS if you were one of the victims?  Or related to one of them?

Or if you have been raped? Or in some other way abused?

How do we love our enemies? How did Jesus do it?  How should we do it?  Why?

Would you love your enemies the way Jesus loves you?

Decluttering

Joshua Becker wrote of the virtues of having a smaller home.

He said that a smaller home is:

• Easier to maintain and clean and less to decorate,
• Because of the above, it gives the dwellers more time for other things like family bonding,
• Less expensive and consequently less financially risky,
• Mentally freeing, because a person with a smaller home would have less possessions to be concerned with,
• Easier to sell the home later, as it is probably more affordable for its next owner.

Many people disagreed, citing reasons why bigger homes are advantageous.  Eg.

• More space.
• Better price.
• Family not always in each others' space.
• Room for stuff.
• Etc.

What do you believe?  What are your values with regards to this aspect of life?

Michael later shared the following questionaire with me:

"1. Do you have a hard time parting with items, even if you never use them or they’re broken?

2. Do you have many items around your house that don’t have a permanent home?

3. Do you tend to make pile of things, to be dealt with at a future time, and these piles often linger for more than a few days?

4. Are there areas in your home (the dining room table, for instance) that must be cleared off before they can be sued for their intended purpose?

5. Do you save things often because you are concerned about how you will feel if you need them in the future and no longer have them?

6. Do you often save things without a clear idea of how you’ll use them in the future?

7. Do you still have items that you once bought with the intention of giving them away as gifts?

8. Do you have boxes of possessions that have moved with you from home to home but you’ve never gone through?

9. Do you often buy multiples of the same items because you’ve forgotten you have it?"

The more "yes" one gives to these questions, the more inclined one is to hoarding tendancies.

Are you a  hoarder?  Is hoarding a good part of living?

It is natural to accumulate stuff as one settles in a place for a longer period of time.  But how does one manage to live more simply?  Is hoarding necessarily bad?  Or, what is good about it?

What was Jesus' attitude towards earthly possessions?

Illegal to be poor

In Malaysia recently, Federal Territories Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Mansor tried to clean up the city of Kuala Lumpur by banning soup kitchens.  He also forbade people to give alms to city's beggars.  His rationale seems to be that the presence of the poor and homeless makes the city look bad.

However, his words have been receiving a lot of negative backlash.  Doesn't Islam encourage giving alms to the poor?  Shouldn't the city be looking after these unfortunate ones, instead of making their lives more miserable?  What is the government doing to aid such people?

Isn't the cost of bureaucracy and corruption higher than the cost of feeding the poor?  Why can't rich bureaucrats open their homes to the poor to get them off the streets?  Is it a crime to be poor?

What do you think the solution of the problem is?

It seems to me that this is not just a Malaysian problem, but quite a universal one.  Countries like to look good by hiding away the fact that there are people among us who are less well off.  Social welfare schemes try to skimp on providing for these as they manage their budgets, as they try to entice the richer with tax cuts.  However, the poor will always be among us, and they need assistance.

In what way can we assist?  We say that "if we give a man a fish, we feed him for a day, but if we teach him to fish, we can feed him for a lifetime".  Is it possible to educate the poor and send them on the way to self-sufficiency?  Would that work for everybody?

How can we care for these people who need help?  Is it fair to give them money for not doing anything, at the expense of those who work hard for what they have?

What can nations do, as they struggle with their national budgets?

What would Jesus do?

Grandparents parenting

Harleena Singh lists the following reasons why grandparents are playing a bigger parenting role with their grandchildren these days compared to the past:

• Compensating for the effect of death or disability of a parent;
• Helping as parents go through divorce, separation, etc;
• Reduce the children's contact with their parents because parents have drug abuse or mental disability type of problems;
• Catering for a home-like experience to help shape the children's cultural identity;
• Support because one or both parents are in prison;
• Help children out in cases of parental abuse;
• Help children abandoned by their parents, or when parents are away in military service;
• Help out their children in the case of teenage pregnancy;

I think all these are valid reasons, and I appreciate grandparents' help.  However, I also see that in a lot of these situations, it is because something went wrong in the lives of the parents, that the grandparents step in to cater for the children.

Is this right?  Should parents be more responsible?  Should the responsibility be undertaken by grandparents, do you think?

I see that sometimes, it is because both parents are employed full-time, or working overseas, that parents take on the parenting role.  It might be greed for more money that this happens, although Harleena also mentions military service as one of the reasons.  I see also that as the cost of living in the cities increase, that it might not be financial greed, but purely necessity driving this trend.

What do you think?  Is this a good trend, or a not-so-good one?  Is the economic reason a valid one?  If this trend is not good, then what would be a better solution?

Permissable conversation

The headlines in the Sunday Telegraph today talked about sportsmen who had converted to Islam.  Apparently, these failing athletes were looking for hope in religion after certain failures.  One of their Muslim buddies convinced them to try Islam.  They are giving it a go, to the extent of praying barefoot in the mosque.

So, it is permissible to talk about Islam to fellow sports stars, and to bring them to the mosque.  It even makes news front-page headlines!

Do Christians have similar freedom?

I learned last year that a certain Christian aid organisation in Australia does not allow one to talk about one's faith, unless the client starts the conversation.  Tonight, I learned that an independant Christian health organisation also has a similar policy.  This takes me by surprise, since Australia previously has a reputation of being a "Christian" country.  One would imagine that staff in known Christian organisations in a developed country with relatively good freedom of speech and religion would be allowed to tell others about Jesus.  No?

Is it fair that Muslims may have converts and make headlines that way, while Christians may not?

Or maybe I am understanding the picture wrong?

Perhaps it was headlines because the Muslims were sports stars?  Perhaps Christian organisations are just forbidden to push their faith, but may share what they believe more gently?

How would you feel if people tried to force you to convert?  Against your will?  Or just by telling you true facts in a convincing way?  Would you argue against the truth?

What if we were all doomed for hell and judgement unless somebody gave us the opportunity to receive salvation from a reliable source?  Would you pass up the opportunity to learn about that reliable source?

Or, if you knew that your best friends and family were doomed for hell and judgement unless you told them how they may receive salvation?  Would you with-hold yourself from telling them what would save them?

Why is it that we can talk about sex, death, aging, politics and most things under the sun, but talking about Jesus is taboo in so many countries?

What do you think?  Is it because Christians are weak and afraid to be laughed at?  Or just unloving?  Or is it because they have a message that the world wishes to shut out?

Why?

The Good Samaritan

Luke 10:25-37 is a parable that Jesus told to explain love to a lawyer.  In a nutshell, the story is about a man who was beaten up by robbers and left for dead.  A priest and a Levite passed by the wounded man but offered no help.  They may have been in a hurry and did not want to be contaminated with the blood of the wounded.  Then a Samaritan passed by.  The Samaritans were considered as racial outcasts by the Jews.  Yet this Samaritan took time to bandage the wounds of the man, put him on his donkey, took him to an inn keeper for care, and promised to pay for the man's care - even though he did not know the man.  He did it out of pity.  Pity that was translated to love.

When I read this story again tonight, I remembered that I had a similar experience to this wounded man, although not quite so bad.

I was crossing the road on foot one day, when an army truck hit me.  I fell, then picked myself up and managed to get to the other side of the road.  I did not realise I was bleeding until people around told me to stop walking.  Most people just continued on their way, just like the priest and the Levite in the Bible story.  Then a man stopped his car and offered to take me to hospital.  He did not worry that I may mess up his car, as some other people might have.  The man was a Muslim, if the clues from the stickers in his car were to be believed.

As I remembered this experience, I thought of the animosity that some Muslims and Christians have against each other.  Is this similar to what the Jews used to have towards the Samaritans?  Yet, as used by God, kindness does get shown.

In this holy month of Ramaddan, while the Muslims fast during the day, let the Christians pray for them - that there be love and kindness, and that God is seen to be real.

Will you join me to in such prayer?  Why or why not?  What specifically would you pray for?

May God bless you in your prayers too.

Table 21

A game show was the vehicle used by the movie 'Table 21' to communicate its message.

Vivaan and Siya are the married couple in this story. Siya wins a competition and is awarded with a trip to Fiji.  There, the couple celebrates their fifth wedding anniversary.

Their package included a dinner hosted by a rich Mr Khan. Mr Khan also hosts a reality show that is telecasted on the web.  The couple is invited to be the contestants on this programme.

The contestants need to answer eight questions truthfully and perform a dare at the end of each question. They are given huge rewards if they are able to do this.  However, they need to play the game to its end. The penalty for lying is death.

At first the questions are easier ones about their relationship, and the dares, though difficult and humiliating, are more harmless.  Later, the questions become deeper, and the dares lie in the realm of being criminal.

Mr Khan reveals some of their deeper secrets, as Vivaan's fear of seeing blood and Siya's affair.  He also exposes their willingness to commit murder; either because of fear or for the sake of self preservation.

In the end the game turns out to be Mr Khan's retaliation for the way his son was 'ragged' during his school days. The movie carries a strong message against 'ragging' - or bullying, as how I would say it in my country.

However, to me, the movie reveals more than just that.  It also speaks loudly about our human nature. We have fears, and we have the ability to manipulate, cheat, lie, and maybe even murder to get over those fears.  We want to have a comfortable and easy life and to be seen as strong and popular, and we can prey on the weak to boost our morale.  Much to the detriment of those around us.  We possibly reap the consequence of our actions also.

Do you think so? Is this what human nature is like?  What can we do about it?

Have you seen the movie? Did you like it? Does it concern you the way Mr Khan personified God in the story?

How will you answer for your misdeeds when God calls you to judgement? How do you think the real world can be fixed?