Teaching Kindness and Faith: Sunday School Reflections

Today at church, I conducted my Sunday School session on the parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31–46). I started the class by playing a short YouTube video that illustrated the parable with images. It showed examples of people caring for others, such as feeding the hungry and visiting the sick - as well as the opposite, where someone acted selfishly or ignored others’ needs.

After the video, I introduced a short activity to make the lesson more interactive. I read out different examples of behavior and asked the students: “If this is a good action, raise your hand. If it’s bad, keep your hands down.” For instance, I said things like, “You see a friend drop their books, and you help them pick them up,” or “You have extra snacks but don’t share with anyone.” Another example was, “Someone is sitting alone at lunch, and you invite them to join your table,” versus “You laugh at a classmate who falls down.” It was simple but effective. Most of the kids raised or kept their hands down appropriately, and it sparked some thoughtful discussion about what it really means to act like a “sheep” versus a “goat.”

One moment that stood out was when a child admitted that he or she had done a lot of “bad stuff.” When I gently asked if the child wanted to share more, the child declined, which I respected.

For the most part, my Sunday School Students are well-behaved. Occasionally, there may be one or two children who behave a little rowdy. But I hope sessions like this help them reflect on what it means to act kindly and responsibly. While the lesson might not be “typically Lutheran,” which focuses on grace and forgiveness, I do think it’s valuable for children to learn the difference between good and bad behavior, what it means to live as Jesus’ sheep in practical, everyday terms.

Salvation of the unevangelised : inclusivism, monolism, and universalism

I came across an old email featuring a discussion my cell group in the varsity Christian fellowship had a few years ago. It was about the topic on the salvation of the unevangelised. A fellow cell group member had shared an article with us giving an answer to the issue. In that article, the writer, who goes by the name Craig Bluemel, talks about how the passage in Roman 2:14-15 allows for those who do not know the gospel to be saved by living to the precepts of God’s ‘Law’. According to Craig Bluemel, this ‘Law’ is summed up with the saying ‘Ye shall love your neighbor as yourself’. Craig Bluemel then goes on to talk about how knowledge of such a law is inherent even in those who have never heard the gospel, such the indigenous people whom the missionaries visited, who “instead of finding ‘savages’ or those still practicing cannibalism in remote parts of the world, to their amazement, they find people with a sweet, gentle, and even childlike nature, who also possess a strong faith in the ‘Creator.’” Craig Bluemel writes that Jesus can bring these people into oneness with the Father as sons and daughters of the Most High, and that once they have made a heart confession of Jesus, they can partake in the path of the glories of salvation found only.

I shared a Q and A article by the Christian apologist William Lane Craig with my group where he talks about the basis for his subscription to the idea of Molinism when it comes to salvation of the unevangelised. Molinism speaks about how God has arranged for those whom he knows would be receptive to the gospel to be placed in parts of the world where they would be exposed to the gospel. The corollary to this idea of Molinism is that God has placed those who are not receptive to the gospel within parts of the world where they are not exposed to the gospel. The reason why William Lane Craig subscribes to Molinism is because he thinks it would be unfair if God sends to hell those who would have believed in the gospel, but did not because they were not exposed to it, and also failed to believe in God based on general revelation according to Romans 1:18 which states that God is apparent from creation and therefore, there is no excuse not to believe in him.

I have some thoughts about these two ideas regarding salvation of the unevangelised. With regards to Craig Blumenthal, I wonder whether his idea that those who did not receive the gospel can be saved through following the ‘Law’ is adequate. For one, it appears to me that this creates the problem whereby those who did not receive the gospel are held to a higher standard in that they have to fulfill the ‘Law’ before they can obtain salvation, rather than simply by believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I don’t think following the ‘Law’ by simply loving your neighbor as yourself is as easy as what it would appear to be. According to mainstream Christian thoughts, it is precisely because of humanity’s inadequacy in following the ‘Law’ which is the reason that God provided Jesus as the means for salvation. So I really am not too sure whether it is so easy a solution to the problem of salvation of the unevangelised for Craig Bluementhal to say that a lot of these people intuitively followed the ‘Law’ and are thereby saved.

And with regards to William Lane Craig’s Molinism, I also wonder how adequate it is. For one, I think it doesn’t quite get rid of the notion of unfairness that William Lane Craig is concerned with regarding God sending unevangelised people to hell, even if they should have believed if they had been exposed to the gospel. I mean, how can God be justified in sending these people to hell on the basis that they would never have believed even if they had been exposed to the gospel? That seems to me to be the same as if a judge would send someone to be punished for a crime which he didn’t commit on the basis that he would have committed it given a different circumstance. Secondly, it would appear to me that Romans 1:18 is saying that there is no excuse for someone not to believe in God based on general revelation alone, even if he would have believed if he had been exposed to the gospel. Taken literally, it is saying that God is just in sending to hell those who are unevangelised and did not believe based on this general revelation alone. Nevertheless, I personally do think that this is quite a harsh outcome and can agree with Craig that this seems unfair.

Honestly, I have been toying with the idea of Christian universalism when it comes to the issue of salvation. If one wants to talk about fairness, it would seem to me that the fairest outcome is for everyone, whether believers or non-believers, to be saved into heaven. No one deserves hell I think, except for really wicked or evil people. But I realize that this idea doesn’t square off with mainstream Christian beliefs or explicit texts of the bible. I am just attracted to this idea based on my thoughts of what would be fair.

"My Grace is sufficient for you"

On Sunday last week, I had a chat with a few church mates over lunch after service. Our conversation came to a part where I was talking about the doubts I have about the existence of God these days because of my disappointments of God for not healing me completely of my headaches despite my prayers to him. I was lamenting to these church mates of mine how God seem to promise so many things in the bible, but seem to under-deliver in reality.

One of the church mates decided to share with me his experience with depression. He says that the epiphany that he had from God that keeps him staying strong in his faith is from the 2 Corinthians 12:9 verse where God says “my grace is sufficient for you”. He tells me that how he tries to overcome his own suffering is to focus on God and not his suffering.

I am appreciative of such testimonies and words of Christian encouragement from Christian friends. In part, I am glad that Christianity has provided a source of strength in their own hardship. Some of these illnesses like depression seems really dreadful, and I would be hesitant to trade tension headaches for depression if I could. I have actually reflected on the 2 Corinthian verse mentioned by this church mate of mine before, but have found myself asking more questions than finding answers. What does God mean by “my grace is sufficient for you”? It seems so unconcrete a thing to be capable of helping anyone. I mean, if I were to go up to a homeless person, or someone begging for money from me, and tell him “my grace is sufficient for you”, that is almost equivalent to a slap to his face in addition to a cold shoulder.

Perhaps God’s grace could have a more concrete connotation than what it appears on the surface. Perhaps God does take steps to ensure the well-being of a person even though he has a reason not to perform the desired request of a person. What I just feel is that grace alone is insufficient. It has to be accompanied with something substantial in order to be helpful. I am honestly not satisfied that God seems to take the “my grace is sufficient for you” approach most of the time. I guess this is where I am spiritually at the moment.

Joel Osteen and prosperity gospel

I bought a book by Joel Osteen titled It’s Your Time while browsing through some books at a book sale corner while waiting for a friend. Given my adverse sentiments towards Health-and-Wealth prosperity gospel, one may wonder why I bought a book by a preacher who is characteristically a proponent of such teachings. For one, I am not really sure whether Joel Osteen is the heretic of a run-of-the-mill prosperity gospelist that I have the impression of, and I would to examine it for myself. For two, I wonder whether there might be something that Joel Osteen has to say that might provide insight or encouragement from a Christian standpoint to where I am in life.

One thing from my perusal of the book is that Joel Osteen’s prosperity gospel is somewhat different from the prosperty gospel of other preachers I have heard. For Joel Osteen, periods of ill-fortune are simply another way in which God may work to the ultimate good and success for the righteous believer. He gave the account of a person shipwrecked on an island, and who was miserable at God for not answering his prayers to be rescued. When the hut he had built caught fire and burnt down, he was furthermore upset at God. Just then, a ship arrived to his location. When he asked the shipmen how they found him, they replied that they saw the fire and thought someone was sending a distress signal. I say that this view of prosperity gospel is different from that of another prosperity gospelist I have heard. That other prosperity gospelist was of the view that a righteous believer will never suffer, and things like ill-health are simply not the will of God.

Still, there are things written in the book which causes to curl some of the ingrained traditionalist Christian worldview that I hold. For one, Joel Osteen makes statements characteristic of what I would call trust theology. That is, belief, or trust in God, is the paramount factor in receiving God’s blessings. He would quite encouragingly talk about how God is not limited by things such as one’s financial status, intelligence, talents, social skills etc, but then follow at the end of the passage with a rather ironic and dubious sounding statement that God is however limited by one’s beliefs. It is very much like how some popular self-help authors would quip that an individual is the measure of his beliefs, except that this self-help dogma is packaged in Christian evangelistic terms.

Still, I do take away some encouraging bits for my Christian faith from having read the first few chapters of the book. I am reminded that God is able to work ultimate good through bad. Indeed, I have the predilection of thinking along lines doubting the existence of God when things are not going my way, and my prayers are not getting answered, or that God doesn’t care. I still do have such doubts, but I am open-minded to the possibility that God is real and has a plan for ultimate good for my life, and that things would turn out well for me. As much as I am skeptical of prosperity gospel and find it artificial, I still wish for it to be true because it provides hope of a better life for people while they are on earth.

A rumination about the nature of my religious faith

I have been thinking about my religious faith these days, and trying to best define what it’s exact nature is. I wonder whether the nature of my faith can be easily summarized in a categorical statement. I like to think of myself as a Christian, despite having doubts as to whether God exists, and whether Christianity is true or not. The biggest motivation for me is that I am not sure how an atheist find a basis to appraise moral values. Whether morality can find objective meaning without religion or God is a point of debate amongst academics, and I don’t profess to be able to definitively determine who is right on the matter. But let me elaborate from my laymen point of view. I do realize that there are really depraved and inhumane acts that take place in the world. One has only got to search the internet to know about such things. It utterly shocks me the extent of depravity that humans can descend to. It is unbounded only by the extent of human imagination. Now, some moral philosophers would seek to develop a comprehensive moral philosophy system to be able to determine morality without appeal to a standard provided by religion, such as utilitarianism. But there are things that I feel are not effectively dealt with using such paradigms of understanding morality. Some things just do not conform to the utilitarian mould in order to be considered “unwholesome”.

Perhaps then, the primary reason for my attraction towards the Christian religion is its ability to stipulate values that I believe are good and wholesome. I am not sure though how I first began to develop these sentiments of which values are good and wholesome, but I suspect that being brought up culturally in a Christian conservative environment might have instilled this state of mind in me. But I do realize from my past experiences that values varies from individual to individual and can change over time.

Now, I do know of Christians who would think that such a conception of the faith as being flawed. Some statements that I know that are passed around evangelical Christian circles are that Christianity is more than simply just morality, it is, primarily, about God. To think about Christianity according its morality reduces it to a functional tool, as much as some people embrace Christianity for its social functional value in that they wish to connect to a social community. There is a branch of practice known as Christian science which simply affirms Christian morality without subscribing to theological beliefs about the existence of God. I don’t think any church endorsing such beliefs exist in Singapore, but I think Christians here in Singapore should be aware of how diverse the practice of Christianity can be in other parts of the world, some that do not adhere to the conventional fundamentals firmly regarded in churches over here.

I have been thinking though to what extent should Christian morality or beliefs be adhered to. Is the morality prescribed in the bible comprehensive, or incontrovertible? As much as I like Christianity for its provision of a standard of morality to which I can find objectivity with. For example, I am not exactly too impressed with the Christian conception of hell, or of some forms of blasphemy being unforgivable.

There are a few things though which I find difficult about Christianity. They are, the apparent absence of God, and the presence of evil and suffering. Moreover, it seems like my prayers for specific things rarely gets answered. I just can’t connect the dots as to why God would want to make his existence so concealed to those who believe in him. Honestly, I don’t have much confidence in God to grant me the things that I ask him for, or to protect me against unfortunate circumstances with guarantee. Bad things happen to all people, good or bad, prayers or no prayers.

So what exactly can I call myself if I am not sure in the existence of God or the truth of Christianity, but am predilectably predisposed towards a belief, and towards subscription of Christain morality and values, whilst at the same time somewhat unsure about how rigid an adherence to the stipulated morality and values must be, but not so unfundamentalist as to discard stipulations that do not appeal to me. In addition, I am someone who places more confidence in the operation of naturalistic process in reality than in supernatural intervention, and therefore don’t place too much faith in the fulfillment of specific requests in personal prayers or ministry, but at the same time, not someone who denies that God is somehow working concealedly behind these naturalistic instruments. Also, I don’t believe that Christianity results in the perfection of human beings, or the correction of the flaws of an individual. And I don’t think that those who practice or minister Christianity are infallible. And I am open to being skeptical about conventional conservative Christianity, while am at the moment predisposed towards seeing the values espoused as positive in nature.

What is true Faith?

Today’s sermon at church by the pastor was about faith. The pastor gave his sermon based on Hebrews 11 and his sermon was titled Faith of the Ancients. The character of Abraham was used as a model of true faith.

What exactly is faith? There seems to be many definition of what faith is. For this sermon in church today, the pastor states that faith is expressed in obedience to God. The pastor points out Abraham’s obedience to God’s command to go into a new land, as well as to God’s test of him to sacrifice his son Isaac. A Christian friend who recommended me to go for deliverance services in order to receive healing from my tension headache tells me that the faith asked of is not so much about believing that God will heal me, but more of an experimental nature of recognizing the possibility that God may heal me. He terms it “experimental faith”.

I was googling about Christian solutions to obsessive compulsive disorder. Okay, the reason is that I suspect that I might be suffering from a certain obsessive compulsive disorder known as “hypochondria” in that I have preoccupative thoughts about health-related worries. I have worried about things like “damage to cardiovascular health due to passive smoking”, “mercury poisoning from breaking lab thermometer”, “electromagnetic radiation from CRT computer screen”, “brain damage from alcohol consumption”, “brain damage from hitting head on floor” etc. Perhaps this preoccupation with my tinnitus and tension headache are also obsessive in nature, and over-proportionate to their severity. These obsessive health-related worries can be quite debilitating as they can occupy my thought for an entire day and last for months. I was thinking that Christianity might offer solutions to my obsessive worries.

There is this Christian psychiatrist by the name of Ian Osbourne who has written a book titled “Can Christianity cure obsessive-compulsive disorder?” He has a website with the address ocdandchristianity.com where he writes information on strategies to deal with obsessive compulsive worries. His proposition borrows from his understanding of a new approach in the world of psychology to deal with OCD named “responsibility transfer therapy” (RTT). The idea of RTT is for the sufferer of the OCD to release himself or herself from the obsessive worry by transferring the responsibility of the worry to another person to handle. For example, a person who worries obsessively about not turning off the gas before leaving the house would delegate that responsibility to check that the gas is turned off to another person, thereby relieving him or her from some measure of that obsessive sense of responsibility to ensure that the gas is turned off. Using this psychology paradigm to describe the Christian approach of trusting in God, this responsibility is here transferred to God. An excerpt from the website below.

“A person suffering from fire obsessions, for instance, turns to God and allows him to take responsibility for the prevention of fire. The individual tormented by contamination obsessions gives to God the responsibility for whether or not he will get a disease. The person who fears she has offended God leaves responsibility for any offense to God….Devout individuals with OCD must work to resist compulsions. In doing so they demonstrate or prove, both to God and to themselves, how much they trust him and love him.”

This Christian RTT approach relies on the notion of faith in God in its method. The writer has provided an excerpt of what faith here entails.

“Theologian Martin Buber illuminates the issue. In his seminal book, Two Types of Faith, Buber begins with this proposition: “There are two, and only two, types of faith: The one from the fact that I trust someone . . . the other from the fact that I acknowledge a thing to be true.” Religious faith, according to Buber, always involves, most basically, either trusting in God or believing in a revealed truth. It is the first type of faith, he is displayed on every page of the Old Testament, as well as in most every sermon by Jesus. It involves unconditional trust in a God who is personal, vital, loving, and trustworthy.

This has great relevance for OCD sufferers. One of the things most puzzling about them is their inability to be reassured about their obsessional fears. People with religious obsessions can be told again and again that Jesus died for them, and that salvation awaits them, yet they still have agonizing doubts. Obsessionals, in fact, have great difficulty in believing in any fact that directly opposes one of their obsessions. OCD sufferers cannot even take as a fact what they see with their own eyes: they can stare straight at a light switch, see that it is off, and yet fear that it is on.  OCD sufferers have a hard time believing in facts. They are doubters. Yet they are very good at trusting in others. It is trust in the person of God—in his power and his mercy—that OCD sufferers must rely on.

For instance, in the case of a person who obsesses that a fire will start in her stove, the right kind of faith is to leave the possibility of a fire with God. If God should, for God’s own reasons, want a fire to start, then he will start one. If he doesn't, he won’t. The wrong kind of faith is to have “faith” that a fire won’t start. For another example. Suppose a person obsesses that he has lost his salvation, and will go to

hell. The right type of faith is to leave his eternal destiny in the hands of God.

The OCDer is called to a deep kind of faith: trust in the ultimate power and mercy of God. We can be greatly consoled by a confident hope that God will prevent an obsessional fear from being realized, a hope that is based on our trust in God's mercy and love. But we can't have factual certainty.”

I appreciate the distinction made by the theologian in the excerpt above. Basically, it is a distinction of faith about the factual certainty of God doing something according to one’s wishes, and a ‘milder’, less demanding sort of faith of simply trusting in God. However, a question I want to ask is what kind of faith is actually asked of in the bible. And here, I can quote two scripture giving different answers. There is the one in Hebrews 11 which seems to indicate faith of the kind that requires belief in factual certainty of the fulfillment of the request to God – “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” Then there is the account of Jesus healing the leper in Luke 5. In that account, the leper begged Jesus “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean”. I thought that the faith expressed by the leper, as connoted by his words is more of the ‘milder kind’ in the sense that he has faith in the power of Jesus to heal, but he still leaves as a question of whether he would be healed on the basis of Jesus’ willingness to heal. Now, I will highlight that there is still a thin distinction between the faith described here with that ‘milder’ version of faith in the Martin Buber excerpt above. The leper expresses his faith in Jesus ability to heal, whereas Martin Buber’s ‘milder’ faith simply expresses trust in God given any circumstances, even if things go against the desired wishes of the person holding onto this faith. (Trust me guys, there is even more of such mind-numbing delineating of concepts and definitions in law studies, and some law school students who quite inadvertently develop a habit to see a need for clarification of such delineation in whatever they discuss. I see that theologians may come second in the running for such vain inquisitions)

Personally, I think the ‘milder’ kinds of faith is more reasonably to be asked of a person than a faith demanding a belief in the certainty of the fulfillment of the request. I mean, why does God have to require that his subject believe whole-heartedly that he, God, will do what the subject want before he does what the subject wants? It seems idiosyncratic to me.

In this website containing Philip Yancey’s synopsis for his book “Prayer – Does it make any difference”, Yancey concludes on that question of prayer with “I now see it [Prayer] not so much as a way of getting God to do my will as a way of being available to get in the stream of what God wants to accomplish on earth.” I don’t think Yancey is necessarily theologically substantiated in his drawing up of priorities of the different functions of prayers. I would like to think that I can and should use prayers to make God do the things I want him to, and that this is as equally important an aspect of prayer. There are many examples of such prayers in the bible where the prayee (pardon the legalese) is requesting God to do something that he wants. But I like how Yancey realistically acknowledges the predicament that believers face in having their prayers go unanswered and things not going according to their prayer requests, perhaps the reason why he came to, in my opinion, a disappointing conclusion that the priority of the function of prayers is more of to understand God than to expect a fulfillment of the prayer request. And I appreciate that he does not take the condescending tone that some Christians might take towards another believer by suggesting that that believer’s prayer is not answered because that believer did not have enough faith in God, or that that believer “did not ask for God to come into his or her heart”. A harsh logical understanding of scriptural passage may lead to such conclusions in my opinion.

Law school starts tomorrow for me, and I can’t say that I am feeling too prepared to deal with school given my prevailing conditions. I did experience a lot of difficulties for the past few semesters because of the tension headache, and perhaps, as what I suspect, from obsessive compulsive disorder and anxiety disorder. Word has it that these conditions are chronic. But I am hoping for this phase to pass and for my mind to be more settled so that I can concentrate on my law studies. I am not sure whether Ian Osbourne whom I mentioned earlier is being truthful or simply trying to be encouraging, but I like what he wrote in his website about how “three of the greatest luminaries in the history of the Christian

religion: Martin Luther, John Bunyan, and Saint Therese of Lisieux” suffered from obsessional fears indicative of OCD as well, in particular, fear of loss of salvation. Martin Luther, progenitor of the protestant faith I know. John Bunyan I have heard of but am not too familiar, and the third one I have not come across (but I should read up on since she is so venerably described by the author, and to ensure that I come off as well-informed in case one of those smart aleck Christians start questioning me on my knowledge of Christian history). I am amused by his identification of disorders based on his study accounts of these historical figures and his thesis that “All three, even more remarkably, after receiving unhelpful advice from their church elders, found a way to conquer their tormenting thoughts through faith. Each found the same solution: Trusting absolutely in God’s power and mercy. In psychological terms, they transferred the responsibility for their obsessional fears to God.” Perhaps I may come to find a similar sense of relief from being able to trust God more.

On a method for the appraisal of evidences for Christianity

A friend of mine provided quite some interesting insights about how to go about the question about whether God exists, and whether Christianity is the correct religion. He says that it is necessary for one to consider the broad framework of the arguments being presented for Christ, and not to over-focus on one aspect of the case for Christianity to the exclusion of other evidences being put forth for the case. The various components of the case theory for Christianity varies in strength. They are usually disputable on their own. For example, historicity of individual instances of the bible may be disputed. Divine revelation alone remains dubitable because of problems such as the difficulty of attributing the experience to the Christian God. However, when all the evidences are examined in totality, they present a very strong argument for the truth of the Christian religion.

An analogy he gave was about how evidence works in the court of law. There may be more than one way to supply evidence. Witness testimony may be one of them. The presence of articles, and motives of the suspect may be another. Now, the evaluation of a case is made on the preponderance of evidences. One aspect of the evidence may be weak, or even inimical to the case theory. But the appraisal of the case theory is strengthened when the various evidences are taken into consideration.

I was thinking that there may be something about case theory fitting the evidences that strengthens the case theory. And this is especially so if the evidences are discovered after the case theory had been formulated. There are cases of archeological findings that corroborates with the historical narrative of the bible. For example, the finding of Noah’s ark in turkey, or the discovery of the ancient dwelling place of a particular clan that was mentioned in the bible. Now, on its own, these examples remain disputable. It is not conclusive whether the structure that was discovered in Turkey really was Noah’s ark. Or it may not be conclusive whether the various findings about the historicity of Jesus are true. But when taken together and compared against the case theory of Christianity as provided by the narrative of the Bible, the strength of the evidences is enhanced, as well as the case theory itself.

I am not sure what historians think about such a method of evaluating evidences for history. And I wonder what the court of law thinks of such a philosophy behind the appraisal of evidences as well. I am wondering whether the evidence module that I am going to take in law school next semester would enlighten me more about how evidences should be weighted and evaluated.