Reflections on a Christmas Sermon: The role of Joseph, and the “Seed of Adam”

At church yesterday, the sermon was on Matthew 1 and focused on the calling and role of Joseph. Overall, I appreciated the sermon. Joseph is often a quiet figure in the Christmas story, and the sermon did a good job bringing out his righteousness, obedience, and the real cost he bore in trusting God.

Joseph’s Role in God’s Plan

The preacher walked through Joseph’s predicament. Joseph discovers that Mary is pregnant during their betrothal, before they have come together. From his point of view, the situation looks morally and legally disastrous. The preacher mentioned how serious betrothal was in first-century Judaism. It was legally binding, requiring divorce to break, and potentially carrying severe consequences for Mary.

The preacher highlighted Joseph’s character. Matthew describes him as a “just” or “righteous” man (Matt. 1:19). He does not want to proceed with the marriage under false assumptions, but neither does he want to expose Mary to public shame or danger. His decision to divorce her quietly was borne about from serious moral consideration and compassion.

When the angel appears in the dream and addresses him as “Joseph, son of David,” the preacher highlighted that this is one of the rare moments where someone other than Jesus is explicitly called “son of David” in the New Testament. The preacher says that this underscores Joseph’s place in God’s plan - Joseph, ‘a son of David’ entrusted with raising Jesus, ‘the Son of David’.

The preacher emphasizes Joseph’s obedience after the dream. He took Mary as his wife, refrained from marital relations until Jesus’ birth, and later protected and provided for the child. Joseph does not speak in the Gospels, but his actions speak loudly.

Point for Pause - Jesus cannot be from the ‘seed of Adam’?

The preacher stated that the Messiah had to be born of a woman to be truly human, but could not be from the seed of Adam, otherwise He would inherit Adam’s sinful nature. This, it was said, is why the virgin birth was necessary.

I found myself wondering whether this way of speaking about the Jesus as not being from “seed of Adam” is actually accurate according to the Bible. I asked another pastor about this later, and he said there was nothing wrong with saying this because ‘seed of Adam’ here refers to conception by natural means. According to that pastor, Jesus could not be conceived from natural means because he would then inherit sinful nature.

“Seed” as referring to lineage rather than method of conception

In ordinary language and in my view - “seed” usually refers to lineage or descent, not the biological mechanism of conception. When Paul speaks of Christ as the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16) or when the New Testament speaks of Jesus as the seed of David (Rom. 1:3), the point is about ancestry and fulfillment of promise, not about whether conception occurred in an ordinary or extraordinary way.

That is why Luke’s genealogy caught my attention. Luke traces Jesus’ lineage all the way back to Adam, ending with “the son of Adam, the son of God” (Luke 3:38). What is striking is that Luke does this after already affirming the virgin birth earlier in his Gospel (Luke 1:35). Luke does not seem to think that Jesus’ miraculous conception prevents Him from truly belonging to Adam’s human family.

This makes me wonder whether it is quite right to say that Jesus cannot be from the seed of Adam. Luke appears to go out of his way to say that Jesus is descended from Adam - while still being conceived by the Holy Spirit.

A Related Question - Only male line transmits sinful nature?

Another question naturally followed for me. If inheriting sinful nature depends on “seed” being understood as natural conception through a man, does that mean sin is transmitted only through the male line? Does Joseph’s line transmit sinful nature, but Mary’s line does not?

Scripture usually speaks more broadly than that. Paul says that sin came into the world through one man, Adam, and spread to all humanity (Rom. 5:12). Acts 17:26 says that God made all nations from one man. The Bible seems to place humanity’s shared fallenness in Adam, not in a particular biological pathway.

Holding the Mystery Together

The preacher rightly emphasized the mystery of the incarnation: Jesus is fully God and fully man, conceived by the Holy Spirit, and perfectly sinless. I affirm all of that without hesitation.

My question is simply whether Scripture itself requires us to say that Jesus is not from Adam’s line - or whether it teaches something more subtle and profound: that the Son of God truly descend from Adam’s line, yet without Adam’s sinful nature.

I’m grateful for sermons that make me think more deeply about Scripture. This reflection is offered in that same spirit.

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.

The Rich Young Man: Love for Wealth vs. Need for Grace

I went on a trip to Johor Bahru, Malaysia with the Young Adult Ministry at my church over the last weekend. During the sermon session, my pastor preached the story about the rich man who approached Jesus, seeking guidance on how to attain eternal life. In this story, A wealthy young man approached Jesus, asking what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus first told him to follow the commandments, which the young man claimed he had kept all his life. Jesus then said, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” The young man became very sad and went away sorrowful because he had great wealth and was unwilling to give it up. According to my pastor, the interaction between Jesus and the rich man highlights a critical flaw in the man’s character: his deep-seated love for wealth. The pastor emphasized that the rich man’s reluctance to sell his possessions and give to the poor reveals a significant fallibility – his attachment to material wealth over spiritual devotion.

However, this viewpoint can be contrasted with another interpretation I learned from my former pastor, rooted in the Lutheran theology of distinction between Law and Gospel. According to this perspective, the real issue at hand is not merely the rich man’s love for money but rather his reliance on his ability to achieve righteousness by adhering to the commandments. When Jesus tells the man to sell everything and give to the poor, it serves as a revelation of the man’s inability to fulfill the Law perfectly and his need for divine grace.

If the story is primarily about the love of money, then virtually all Christians would fail the test, as few could truly sell all their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. This Law and Gospel interpretation, therefore, highlights the broader and more profound theological point: the impossibility of achieving salvation through human efforts alone. The Law, as represented by Jesus’ command, reveals human shortcomings and the need for the Gospel, which offers salvation through faith in Christ.

This interpretation aligns with the disciples’ reaction, who, upon hearing Jesus’ words, asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus’ response, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible,” reinforces the message that salvation is not attainable by human efforts but through God’s grace.

While the Law and Gospel distinction provides a valuable lens through which to understand this parable, it is important not to take this perspective too far. For instance, some may argue that Jesus’ commands to love God and neighbor should be viewed solely as Law, thereby stripping these teachings of their moral and edifying impact. This extreme application could also diminish the transformative power of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes, which offer profound moral guidance and inspiration.

I've observed that Christians often tend to be judgmental towards certain characters in the Bible due to their perceived flaws. For example, in the story of the rich young man, many focus on his love of wealth as the key issue that is deserving of criticism, sometimes overlooking his sincere effort to keep the commandments. It's almost as if this one flaw disqualifies him entirely from inheriting eternal life, despite his evident commitment to following God's laws.

Perhaps a holistic way to look at it is that keeping the commandments can be seen as the basic standard for a good Christian life. However, those who aspire to a higher spiritual calling may be challenged to go further, such as selling all they have and giving to the poor, as Jesus suggested. This additional step signifies a deeper level of sacrifice and trust in God, which not everyone may be ready or called to undertake. Moreover, even not-so-good Christians or those who have strayed, like the prodigal child, can be saved through God's grace. This underscores the doctrine of Law and Gospel, where the Law reveals our shortcomings, but the Gospel offers salvation through faith, emphasizing that our flaws do not disqualify us from eternal life. By considering both aspects, we gain a more balanced understanding of the characters and the messages in these biblical stories.

In conclusion, the Law and Gospel perspective offers a sensible and useful framework for interpreting the parable of the rich man. It underscores the necessity of divine grace and the futility of attempting to achieve righteousness through our own efforts. However, it is crucial to balance this understanding with the recognition that Jesus’ teachings also provide essential moral guidance that can edify and transform our lives.

Sunday School and King Solomon

Today was a fulfilling and eventful Sunday. My day started with attending church, where I had the privilege of leading the Sunday school session. I had nine children in my class, and our focus was on the story of King Solomon and his request for wisdom from God.

To make the lesson interactive, I handed each child a piece of paper and asked them to write down what they would wish for if God appeared in their dream and offered to grant them one wish. The responses were diverse and telling of each child's personality and desires. One child wished for a pet rabbit, another for a mansion, yet another for more freedom from parents, and one wished to be liked more than a classmate. There were also wishes for good school results and wealth, even from such young minds. This exercise led us into the story of King Solomon, who, when given a similar opportunity by God, chose wisdom. I explained how God was pleased with Solomon's choice, emphasizing the value of wisdom.

After the story, we moved on to a creative activity: making Father's Day cards. I played a tutorial video from YouTube, and the children followed along, crafting beautiful cards to be handed out next week.

In the afternoon, I participated in a Young Adult Ministry event, held in a function room at a condo. The event was filled with delicious food, such as fried rice, curry chicken, and prawns and we played various games starting with charades. I was in charge of teaching the game Splendor. Although I was initially rusty with the rules, I quickly got back into the groove. Despite not winning, it was great fun, and everyone seemed to enjoy learning and playing the game.

Later, I met up with a friend to visit another friend who has been facing some challenges. We spent time talking, offering support, and reconnecting. It felt good to be there for him and to strengthen our friendship through meaningful conversation.

Overall, it was a busy but rewarding day, filled with teaching, fellowship, and moments of genuine connection.

Cell group session: Genesis 4 - The Story of Cain and Abel

I attended my church cell group last Friday evening. It was a combined cell group session consisting of the people from the cell group I usually attend together with another cell group comprising of people slightly older than those in my cell group. The people in the slightly older cell group led the cell group session, which includes the opening song worship session and the bible study session.

The group was going through the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4. As the story goes, Abel and Cain each brought their respective offerings to God, and God looked with favour on Abel and his offering but not on Cain and his offering.

The first discussion question for the session was “how to respond to someone who feels that God isn’t present”. I am not sure or can’t remember how this discussion question tie in with the Cain and Abel story. Perhaps it was about the way Cain was feeling, or maybe it was a separate discussion of its own altogether.

The answer that was provided on that was that we shouldn’t trust out emotions, but that we should believe and know with certainty based on reading the word of God from the bible, and gain faith from the partaking of the sacrament at Holy Communion, and to continue to go to church. A group member brought out the point that Pastors might also feel the same way at certain points in their life, but he admires that Pastors continue to be able to keep going and ministering, and we should be inspired to do the same.

The next question of the discussion was “What does it mean to say God has “found favour with someone?” The passage which was read in relation to that was Luke 1:30-31 where Mary, the mother of Jesus was told by an angel that she has found favour with God and will give conceive and give birth to Jesus. The commentary that was provided on this was that favour is unmerited grace from God. What is the reason that God found favour with Abel and his offering and not Cain and his offering? The passage referred to in relation to this question was Hebrew 11:4 – “By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings.” 

Does the notion that God found favour with Abel due to his faith contradict the notion that favour is unmerited grace? A cell group member asked that question, and the discussion leader added futher commentary which he had initially intended not to go into about how there are two types of favour, one merited and the other unmerited. The merited ones include the likes of those mentioned in Psalms 147:11 where the psalmist writes, "The Lord favours those who fear Him, those who wait for His lovingkindess", Proverbs 3:3-4 where the author, presumably King Solomon states "Do not let kindness and truth leave you: bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart. So you will find favour and good repute in the sight of God and man", and Proverbs 8:32-35 - "Blessed is the man who listens to me [wisdom], watching daily at my gates, waiting at my doorposts. For he who finds me finds life and obtains favour from the Lord." The unmerited kind of favour typically involves those of the salvific kind where Jesus died on the cross to redeem us of our sins, as in Ephesians 2:5-9. So apparently, the favour that Abel received from God was of the merited kind.

The commentary that was delivered by the discussion leader from the pastor was that “we receive faith as a gift of the Holy Spirit. Abel believed in God and in the promise of the Messiah, so he was righteous by faith. Cain clearly did not trust in God, so we can conclude that he had rejected God’s gift of faith. Abel brought his offering in faith, knowing God would be pleased with it. Cain did not approach God in faith. Perhaps he even thought his offering would please God in and of itself. The story of Cain and Abel helps us see clearly that God desires us to trust in Him and bring our offerings in faith rather than trusting in our own works to please God.”

I brought up a point which seemed to annoy one of the older members there. I asked whether we as Christians might be too quick to pour judgment upon Cain for his shortcomings when God might not have judged Cain as harshly as we would. Just because Cain might not have offered his offering with faith or as much faith as his brother doesn’t necessarily mean he did not trust in God or rejected God’s gift of faith etc. After all, in the passage, God’s response to Cain thereafter was not one of condemnation, but a warning, or even a word of counsel to Cain to struggle against the temptation to sin. So it seems to suggest that there was a possibility that Cain could have very well stayed off the wrong path, though in retrospect and from what we know further down the story, he failed. Moreover, wouldn't the fact that Cain was angry that God had not shown favour to him or his offering suggest that he took his offering seriously, or had hoped to please God with his offering? Borrowing from my own work experience in the legal industry, I know how disappointing it can be to do my best at my work and submit it to the Boss, only to be told that I had done a slipshod job or not put in due effort into the task.

The older member said that it can be taken as given that Cain had these offending thoughts or attitudes towards God given that he killed his brother which we all know later in the story.

I said that if indeed Cain was guilty of thinking of his offering being pleasing to God in and of itself, many of us Christians would probably be guilty of such thinking too. Yet it seemed like the characterization of Cain that was being imputed to him based on the commentary of the bible study session was rather harsh as to be denunciatory of him. I could have perhaps have made my point a lot more tactfully or diplomatically, but I asked, perhaps somewhat rhetorically, whether we as Christians sometimes are overly quick to come up a whole list of crimes to indict someone for a relatively minor infraction in our perceived need to justify God’s disapproval of that person. God may very well not have judged that person as harshly as we have. In the instance of Cain, Cain might have fallen short of the required standards for making a desirable offering, but had he committed such a transgression as to be tantamount of rejecting God’s gift of faith and perhaps God altogether? I don’t think it is clear from the passage that he did, which was why God cautioned Cain that sin was crouching at his door and desired to have him, but he must rule over it. It implies that Cain had not gone too far down the road yet in his error as to be beyond salvation.

Another cell group member asked whether Cain could have been forgiven for his sin of murdering Abel? That group member felt that Cain did show remorse in what Cain said in Genesis 4:13-14 – “My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” I drew parallels of this with Judas Iscariot, who in Matthew 27 expressed remorse after betraying Jesus, yet did not take the critical step of asking for forgiveness. The cell group member who had gotten annoyed with me earlier felt that there was no actual remorse or contrition on the part of Cain. He cited the passage of 2 Samuel 12 where David said “I have sinned against the Lord” as being exemplary of what a remorseful attitude that merits forgiveness entails. I don’t want to sidetrack the discussion here by asking how David’s remarks was in any way different from that of Achan's in Joshua 7:20, who despite making the same remark as David, was nevertheless stoned to death. What I am more interested in is the point that Cain showed at least remorse, which even though it may not have measured up to some required standard required for forgiveness, is nevertheless present. Shouldn't that at least count for something? A cell group member pointed out that Cain may not have been able to ask God for forgiveness then since Jesus had not yet done his salvific work on earth by dying on the cross, but could Cain have at least done some of the sacrificial rituals prescribed in the old testament to achieve the same? Perhaps he did so, but we can never know. Then again, the animal sacrificial rituals for penance of sins was probably not even existent during the time of Cain and Abel.

Qualifying for the Singapore Bar; Christian and church life; and Life in general

This year, I have been caught up with doing my pupillage at a law firm for the earlier half of the year, and then taking the bar exam in the latter half of the year. I did my pupillage, first at a firm dealing with corporate litigation, and then moved to another firm that dealt with criminal and family law matters. I am still quite undecided as to which area of legal practice I should delve into. My good sense tells me that if I should decide to practice law, I should practice in a community-related legal discipline like criminal, torts, and family, but a part of me wish to be able to do corporate-related legal work like merger and acquisition, and insolvency. I find those contents very much harder to grasp though. Perhaps I should be doing something else other than law for a career, but I am not sure what that should be.

My long-standing illness with tension headache still gets the better of me at times. I have been suffering from this illness for more than 5 years now. I feel that it makes me more easily addled than what I would otherwise be, though it may very well be that the content by which I am trying to grasp may very well be beyond my mental ken. I have begun trying out certain therapies like acupuncture and tuina. There are quite many traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) clinics near my previous workplace providing for such alternative medicine treatment. Acupuncture doesn’t seem effective in my opinion. Tuina, a form of traditional Chinese massage, has some alleviating effect, but it is no panacea.

It is quite an experience doing my stint in the legal industry, and I truly enjoyed interacting with the various clients and working upon their various legal problems. It allows me to witness a snippet of society. I got to see some of the social ills from doing criminal and family related legal work. I think I have more of a fondness for litigation rather than simply corporate work. The former involves going to court and presenting a case before a judge. The latter is more sedentary in nature, and the daily routine is mostly being in the office working upon some corporate document. If there was anything that inspired me to study law, it were the legal dramas like Boston Legal,  games like Ace Attorney, and books like How to Kill a Mockingbird where the lawyer characters appear most charming and eloquent when they passionately argue their case on behalf of their clients in court with great panache. In that regard, litigation would be more in line with that initial conception of what legal work is all about.

I have been trying to brush up on my mother tongue throughout this year, which is the Chinese language. One reason for doing so is because I feel it would be useful for me in dealing with Chinese-speaking clients. Another reason is that I wish to be able to communicate more effectively with chinese-speaking Singaporeans. I try improving my Chinese by watching Chinese dramas. Some of the Chinese dramas I have watched are The Three Kingdoms and Battle of Changsha. The Three Kingdoms is a period of tripartite division of China between the states of Wei, Shu, and Wu in the 14^th century. Battle of Changsha is a drama revolving around the lives of a family in China during the Japanese invasion in World War 2. 

I make it a point to attend church on Sundays. It would be nice if I could find the discipline to write on my blog about what goes on in my weekly church service. Indeed, there are plenty interesting things for which to write about, but for some reason, I find it difficult to go about writing about them despite wishing to.

I watch sermons by various pastors and priests on youtube, and read blogs by various Christian writers. Some of the pastors of whose sermons I watch are Timothy Keller, Jon Piper, and John F. MacArthur. I also watch monologue videos by Catholic priest Fr Mike Scmitz. I also find guidance in the secular wisdom of Alain De Botton, a british popular philosopher, in his narrated animated videos on the youtube channel School of Life. 

I also meet up with friends I know from law school, especially those whom I know from the batch prayer group. It’s my way of keeping in touch with people from the fraternity, and to fellowship with fellow believers in Christ. It also helps to strengthen my faith, and keep me from my proneness to excessive doubts and disgruntlement with God. Recently, I have been attending a cell group at my church. It is made up of church members a little younger than I am. The cell group that I was formerly in composing of guys around my age has pretty much become defunct because the other cell group members have stopped coming to church, or left for other churches. I guess there’s a homeliness to attending the church I am a regular at. It is also one in which I feel there is more of a sense of authenticity of what being a Christian means, compared to what may be talked or emphasized about at other churches. The church which I attend is a Lutheran church. From time to time, my pastor would meet me up for lunch, and I would talk to him about my struggles in life, and discuss with him what I think about his sermons, and what could be done to make things better at church.  

Church Sermon about wisdom

I went to church today, and I went to church last week as well. But I went to a different church that I usually go to from the one I went today as I had to pass something to a friend there. The church which I had went to last week was a Bible-Presbyterian (BP) church. I have been to that church a few times now, and my impression of it is that there is quite some difference in the stuff that they bring up there from the church that I usually go to. For example, in a previous service which I had gone to in the BP church, the Pastor gave a sermon about how the congregants there should bring the church to the world at large. He had a catchy jingo to capture the essence of his sermon. “Bring them in, see the change, send them out.” The church was a place for people to be reformed, and then to bring that change to the world outside the church. I don’t hear as much about bringing change from within my church to the outside world as much in the usual Lutheran church which I have been attending since young. It would seem to me that my church is more focused on the redemption part of the gospel than encouraging people to bring their reformed self beyond the church so that they can change the world positively in their likeness as well. There is a good I suppose to not being too assertive about the need for congregants to go out and make disciples of all nations and messages of such nature. Sometimes, what a church goer needs to hear is how the church or God is administering to his or her need, and not about how he or she should fulfill his or her obligation to God to minister to the world or society or large. Given my own stage in life right now where I find myself struggling with my religious faith and belief in God, I find myself being more drawn towards my own church than towards the BP church where the emphasis seems to be about how we as Christians can bring positive change to the world.

I shall write about what went on in service at the BP church last week, and then on what went on in my church today. At the BP church last week, the preacher there was giving a sermon on the passage of Daniel 2 where the biblical character Daniel had to give an interpretation to the dream of King Nebuchadnezzar. The message of the sermon was about how Daniel, in contrast to the other wise men in King Nebuchadnezzar’s court, recognize that his wisdom came from God, while those other wise men relied upon their own wisdom. The preacher made the point that true wisdom is not about knowledge or intelligence, but about a relationship with Jesus Christ. I have a question about the point made by the Pastor though. “Is that really what wisdom means in the bible?” I mean, a relationship with Christ is nice and good and all, but is that what the bible means by having wisdom? From my own reading of the bible, it seems that wisdom has a certain quality and merit of its own altogether apart from simply a relationship with God. Like there are certain characters who are called wise, and this wisdom seems to entail something along the lines of them having certainly qualities of mind or capabilities apart from their moral rectitude or devotion to God. Why, even a character like Ahitophel who went against King David by siding with Absalom in his uprising was esteemed for his great wisdom. On the other hand, there may have been other exemplary biblical characters like Moses or David, but they were not as much esteemed for wisdom. In terms of relationship with God, David is called “A Man after God’s own heart”, but this is not the case for wisest man who ever lived, Solomon who is described in 1 King 11 as having turned away from God. I would prefer to keep the term wisdom and the notion of relationship with God as separate categories.

The thing is, is that I don’t think that it is God’s will to grant high amount of wisdom to everyone. Sometimes, I feel that Christians make the mistake of thinking that wisdom or intelligence is a sign of a person’s close relationship with God, or vice versa, that a close relationship with God would grant one wisdom or intelligence. I myself am probably guilty of such thinking. Fact of the matter is, there are Christians who are smart, and there are Christians who are not so smart; And there are non-believers who are smart, and non-believers who are not so smart as well. Whether a person is smart or wise does not necessarily mean that he or she have a greater standing with God than someone who is less smart or wise. Someone might have a more prominent standing in church ministry, but he or she is still very much human nonetheless, and liable to err.

For service at my usual Lutheran church today, the sermon passage was on Matthew 4:12-23, where Jesus first began his public ministry. The Pastor’s message was about how Jesus ministered to a darkened world, and how we continue to live in a darkened world where many people in Singapore society are still non-believers and idol worshippers. The Pastor shares about how, for exercise, he would run up the stairs of a flat, across the corridor to the stairs on the opposite end, and repeat that until he gets to the top. As he goes about his exercise, he would observe the outside of the apartments he passes by, and notice that many households in Singapore display various paraphernalia indicating their adherence to various folk religions. According to the Pastor, these are still signs that we are trapped in the darkness of an unbelieving world.

What do I think of this characterization of unbelief as that of a dark world? Well, it’s pretty much conventional Christian paradigm of framing things. It’s kind of like a lingo actually which may or may not have as much negative connotation as one would intuitively associate with such a term "darkness". For myself, I am not so keen on characterizing mere unbelief as darkness. It is kind of hyperbolic in my opinion. But I do recognize that there are quite some disturbing or concerning social phenomena that take place in society or in the world, part of which may stem from lack of religious belief, whether Christian or others, and of which Christianity and other religions can serve as a guiding light.

Sanctification by water a separate doctrine from blood atonement? A sermon by Pastor Joseph Prince

I have been visiting different churches for the past few weeks in the month. One church which I went to about a month back was New Creation Church, a megachurch led by Pastor Joseph Prince who is a quite well-known personality in the Singapore Christian community for being a megachurch pastor. Honestly, I have quite an aversion towards these non-denominational charismatic churches because of some of the doctrines they espouse, such as health-and-wealth prosperity gospel, and tithing-and-prosperity gospel. I am nonetheless curious about church communities beyond the church I attend regularly, and one impetus for me to explore New Creation was a friend who goes there regularly inviting me to join for service.

Pastor Joseph Prince gave the sermon for that Sunday. Actually, it was a telecast of his sermon in the morning service being displayed during the late afternoon service which I attended that day. One part of his sermon which I found both interesting and unfamiliar, perhaps also with the uneasy feeling of it being heretical, was his espousal of the doctrine of water sanctification. That excerpt of the sermon had been uploaded onto youtube and can be seen here. What Pastor Prince talked about on that point was that for a Christian who has accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, the redemption of sins by the blood of Jesus on the cross is administered once and for all on the believer upon his or her acceptance of Jesus. What is at work then when a believer asks for forgiveness thereafter is not the washing of sins by the blood, but sanctification by the water of uncleanliness. According to Pastor Prince, if we say that we have to be continually washed by the blood of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, it would imply that the blood of Jesus was ineffective in washing us of all our sins when we had accepted him as Lord and Savior in the first place. What then is acquired when a believer sin is not sin per se, but uncleanliness, and that is eradicated through the doctrinal process of “washing with water”. What “washing with water” entails though does not require the actual use of water, but is performed symbolically through ordinary Christian activities, such as listening to a sermon, reading a Christian devotional message, or reading the bible. Pastor Prince claims that this practice of sanctification with water was what was being done when Jesus washed the feet of the disciple. The Lutheran church which I attend regularly would have simply taken the significance of this act as a moral of servanthood Christianity, but Pastor Prince seems to think that it goes further to suggest a doctrine of continual water sanctification for spiritual uncleanliness. He goes on to substantiate this by referring to the Old Testament ritual practice for the purification of uncleanliness as described in Numbers 19. There, a heifer is burnt and its ashes mixed with water to be sprinkled over a person for purification of uncleanliness. A Lutheran church like the one I regularly attend would have taken the view that these rituals were for purification of ceremonial uncleanliness, and are thereby redundant given the new covenant. But Pastor Prince seems to make a distinction of such rituals described in Numbers 19 as ‘water’ rituals from that of rituals involving blood sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins, and he ties it in to his doctrine of water sanctification by saying that whilst the blood rituals have been fulfilled and circumvented once and for all by Jesus’ death on the cross, the water rituals still applies in the symbolic process of water sanctification through spiritual cleansing activities.

In that, Pastor Prince was critical of both mainstream denominational view and left-wing grace preachers. He says that both do not take into account this doctrine of water sanctification but focus only upon blood atonement for sins. He critiques denominational theology for leading to a self-condemnational attitude of the believer who constantly languishes with the need for cleansing of impurity by the blood for sins. He critiques other grace preachers for missing out on the need for sanctification through such spiritual practices mentioned above even as a Christian has been cleansed once and for all by the blood.

My own thoughts on this? On the one hand, I am somewhat positively surprised, because I have heard criticisms by Christians in my own church of Pastor Prince being antinomian with his grace teaching, and this doctrine of water sanctification seems to emphasize a need for spiritual discipline within his church. On the other hand, I am sceptical. For one, I don’t see how this doctrine of water sanctification is espoused in the act of Jesus’ washing of his disciples’ feet. I think it is quite a stretch to infer a doctrine of water sanctification out of this act alone when Jesus didn’t explicitly describe such a significance to it. For two, I don’t see how this process of water sanctification is now to be carried out in the symbolic way of spiritual devotional activities such as reading the bible, rather than in the manners described in the passages cited by Joseph Prince. How is listening to a sermon or reading a devotional material like the Daily Bread to be in the process of being sanctified by the water? Why shouldn’t it require the exact ritual of either sacrificing a heifer in Numbers 19, or the actual washing of feet as performed by Jesus in the new testament? Also, isn’t Pastor Prince subject to the same criticisms he levy on the other churches’ views? Wouldn’t this continual process of water sanctification come off as legalistic and condemnational as the traditional Christian view of the continual need for blood sanctification? Perhaps a counter-argument to that would be that according to Pastor Joseph Prince’s view, this prescription of the need for water sanctification is with regards to mere extant spiritual uncleanliness and not spiritual impurity that affects the spiritual core of a person. Pastor Prince used the analogy of a gold bar in dirt being washed with water, whereby the gold derives its value from it being gold, but is made clean from the dirt around it by washing with water. Likewise, a Christian has been justified as righteous by the blood of Jesus, but periodically comes into contact with spiritual dirt or uncleanliness, and thereby requires periodic sanctification by water. It is a technical distinction, and I am not sure how far such distinction matters to a lay Christian. Perhaps Christians who struggle with a sentiment of chronic self-condemnation might find this doctrine of water sanctification appealing because it pronounces him as righteous even though he might feel that he is still not righteous enough or sins too frequently as to be made pure in the sight of God for any considerable time extent, whereas a traditional blood atonement doctrine might make him feel continually condemned of spiritual impurity for his frequent sinning. A traditionalist response could be that the person in question who feels constantly self-condemned should not feel so because forgiveness of sins through the blood is so freely given by God upon confession of sins and repentence. But I know of Christians who struggle with the idea that their sins are too big to be even forgiven by God in the first place, even with the blood atonement of Jesus, and I don’t see how this doctrine of water sanctification would resolve such self-condemnational attitude because such a Christian wouldn’t think he has been made righteous by justification by the blood in the first place.

I wonder how far Pastor Joseph Prince’s view are prevalent in the Christian community, or whether they are unique to his church and his teachings. I also wonder whether it is something he came up with himself, or endorsed from some other Christian thinkers or preachers.

John 19:11 – Who is from above? And who guilty of the greater sin?

I went to church last week for Good Friday and Easter Sunday services. I can vaguely recall what the sermon was about for easter, but there was one point made on the passage of John 19 when Jesus was being interrogated by Pontius Pilate which stuck out to me. In verse 11, Jesus answered Pilate after Pilate had told Jesus that he had the power to crucify him and release him that Pilate could have no power against him unless it was given from above, and therefore, the one who delivered him to Pilate has the greater sin. According to the pastor, Jesus was telling Pilate that God’s power was greater than Pilate’s, and that if God had not ordained Pilate to have such power, he would not have been able to boast of it. With regards to who is being referred to as having the greater sin for delivering Jesus to Pilate, the pastor says that this refers to the chief priest, Caiaphas.

I was perplexed by this verse because the sentencing suggest some relation between the power that had been given from above to Pilate, and the one having the greater sin for delivering Jesus to Pilate. It seemed that a literal interpretation might suggest that the one from above is guilty of the greater sin for delivering Jesus to Pilate. I was checking commentaries about this passage during service, but the more devotional sources online expresses similar opinions with what my pastor says, although some commentaries suggest that Judas Iscariot was included in the one referred to as having delivered Jesus and thus being guilty of the greater sin.

I looked up the passage online again today, and found that there were a few forums (see here and here) where some commentators expressed the same perplex about the verse. One answer on the forum referred to the original language of the word ‘from above’, anōthen, as being used in other passages of the bible, and in most instances referring to God or heaven, but it disapproves of the idea that the authority mentioned as being guilty of the greater sin refers to God and that this refers rather to the Chief Priest and the Sanhedrin. However, it doesn’t really explain why the logical structure of the sentence is the way it is. Why is there the word ‘therefore’?

I looked up the word ‘therefore’ in its original language on blue letter bible. The original language is in greek, and is called dia. I am wondering whether ‘therefore’ has a different connotation in its original form. From my brief perusal, it would seem that the word ‘therefore’ is used in a manner largely consistent with how one may understand it in today’s times. But there are some instances in other passage where the way ‘therefore’ is used in other parts of the bible where I find them as perplexing as the John 19:11 verse. For example, Matthew 12:30 – 31 writes “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” I am again perplexed as to how the second part of the passage relates to the first. What relation does blasphemy against the Spirit being unforgivable have to do with whether one is with or against Jesus?

I was hoping that the easier solution to John 19:11 would be to interpret the one from above as mentioned by Jesus as referring to the authority who had delivered Jesus to Pilate. I thought it would make sense if it was Caiaphas who had given authority to Pilate to put Jesus to death, and is therefore guilty of the greater sin for being the principal of the decision. But in light of the argument that ‘from above’ in its original language has largely been used to refer to God or heaven, I don’t think this interpretation is as viable as I would had first thought.

If the correct interpretation to be taken is that the one from above refers to God, and the one who delivered Jesus to Pilate and is guilty of the greater sin is the Chief Priest, perhaps a way to explain the logical connection would be that God has given the right to Pilate to put Jesus to death, but this is not so for the Chief Priest, and therefore, the Chief Priest is guilty of a greater sin since his exercise of authority to crucify Jesus is not intended by God, whilst that of Pontius Pilate is.

"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.

Doubts about the function of the holy communion

I have been attending a Lutheran spirituality course at my church led by my pastor. The material used for the course is a book titled “The spirituality of the cross – The way of the first evangelicals (Revised Edition)” by Gene Edward Veith, Jr.

The course so far emphasizes the viewpoint that grace and salvation comes from God, rather than it being the merit of good works by human individuals. Even the ability to have faith is deemed to be the work of God, as sinful human beings are unable to believe on their own accord. As such, no one should claim himself superior to his fellow human being, but should be humble and grateful for his belief and salvation.

The other point that is tied in is that of the sacraments. The sacraments seem to be a key feature in Lutheran spirituality on how God administrate his gifts and saving grace to believers. So rites like baptism of infants, and the partaking of the holy communion, are deemed to be essential practice for the salvation and forgiveness of sins.

I have some reservations though about this idea of sacraments, especially the part about the partaking of holy communion as being essential for the forgiveness of sins. For one, I don’t like the idea of the institutional church claiming for itself the key to forgiving people’s sins. I just have an aversion towards the idea that there needs to be another layer of ritual for the forgiveness of sins apart from the simple prayer for God to forgive one’s sins, and that the means of the latter is inferior to the former. The key bible passage for examination regarding the function of holy communion seems to be Matthew 26:27, where Jesus took the cup of wine, and told the disciples to drink from it, saying “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”

I suppose this saying by Jesus is open to interpretations. On the one hand, it could mean the partaking of the holy communion, which is representative of the blood of Jesus, is essential to receive the forgiveness of sins. On the other hand, Jesus could be referring to his crucifixion as the blood covenant that is poured out for the forgiveness of sins. The wine in the holy communion is simply symbolic and representative of the crucifixion, and Jesus intends it to be simply a reminder rather than having the function for forgiving sins.

I favour the latter interpretation. I just don’t see why it is that God would need the practice of another ritual to administer the forgiveness of sins. The death of Jesus on the cross seems adequate to me, and salvation stemming from this is freely administered upon petition via prayers.

Did Satan want Jesus to be crucified?

The pastor at my church was giving a sermon on the passage of Matthew 16:21-23 last Sunday. In that passage, Jesus predicts his death and resurrection. His disciple, Peter, rebukes him by saying that such an outcome shall not happen to Jesus. Jesus, in turn, rebukes Peter by saying “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

The message of the sermon was about how God’s plans may differ from the plans that we think God has. However, what caught my attention was the pastor’s claim based on the passage that Satan’s plan was always to prevent the crucifixion of Jesus and thereby avert the salvation of humanity that comes with the death of Jesus. This differs from what some other speakers I have heard say about Satan’s plan being always to kill Jesus.

One part of the bible that I think lends argument to that view that Satan wanted Jesus crucified is Luke 22:3, where Satan entered Judas Iscariot and made him confer with the chief priest on how he may betray Jesus.

One attempt at an explanation of this apparent incongruity that I have encountered is in this transcript of a sermon by John Piper who says that Satan saw his efforts to divert Jesus from the cross failing. Therefore he resolves that if he can’t stop it, he will at least make it as ugly and painful and as heartbreaking as possible. Not just death, but death by betrayal. I can’t say that I am too convinced by this explanation. It seems too petty a reason to me for why Satan would make this last-minute ditch at his attempt to avert Jesus’ death on the cross.

My impression of the matter has always been that Satan wanted Jesus killed, but was outwitted instead when Jesus’ crucifixion brought about the salvation of humanity and his subsequent resurrection instead of his eternal death. One view that I proffer is that Jesus was not really talking to Satan when he rebuked Peter. It was simply an allegory of how Peter’s plan is such an impediment to Jesus’ own plan to be crucified, that it is akin to something from the devil. I don’t think that Peter was necessarily being possessed by the devil when he said those words. Jesus’ words were only meant to be a stern rebuke to Peter. However, the real Satan does want Jesus dead, but just didn’t know that Jesus was making use of that plan to obtain salvation for humanity.

Obligation to tell the hard Christian truth?

Last Sunday at church, a fellow church mate of mine who is quite active in the leadership ministry of the youth service gave his maiden sermon. The message of his sermon was about how we need to tell the hard truth about God’s punishment for sin to the world, even though this message is displeasing to people out there. He brought up the passage featuring the prophet Jeremiah, who spoke the bitter prophecy about Israel’s future exile, and contrasted this with the more optimistic sounding albeit false prophecy by Hananiah in the passage of Jeremiah 28. The point of this biblical passage is that the good news is not necessary the truth.

I wonder how I should relate to the sermon message for that day. The speaker was saying that if you talk to people about how they are in sin, and that Jesus is the only way to be saved, they would scorn you for being judgemental and exclusive. He then went on to cite the verse about how it is only natural for Christians to be persecuted for their message.

For the most part, I don’t see it as my business to tell people who are living sinful life to repent and turn to God. If I have the opportunity, I prefer to tell them about my Christian faith, and introduce them to a friendly loving image of what it is about, and then let them accept the doctrines on sin and punishment by themselves once they start attending church. I do acknowledge that we live in a sinful world with sinful people, and that I am myself someone who struggle with sin. I think that Christianity has a good message to preach in telling people to avoid living a sinful life. But I think I will just come off as an overzealous religious nut if I tell people that they are sinful and need to repent right in their face. And I don’t exactly like invoking the doctrine of hell and punishment as a way for people to acknowledge their sins and repent of them. I think sin should be avoided for its own sake, more than just out of fear of punishment.

I also am not sure how to carry out this Christian obligation, if indeed it is a Christian obligation, in a socially appropriate manner. For example, if I am sitting with school peers who are non-Christian and they are talking things which are lewd at the lunch table. I don’t join in with such conversation if it gets too lewd, but I don’t want to appear self-righteous or overly-holy either by telling people that such conversation is not something I like or condone from my Christian convictions

Thoughts on the Christian comment - "Do not worry. Trust in God"

A oft-said remark by fellow Christians with regard to one’s sharing about problems in life is to trust God and not to worry. If there is any passage that is quoted, it would be Matthew 6:25-34.  Some Christians might even press on the point that it is a command by Jesus not to worry (eg: see this relevant magazine article). Just at church this morning, the pastor was giving a sermon in which he said that lack of trust in God is in part due to one’s sinful nature.

I have several thoughts about this Christian rhetoric. For one, I am not sure what it means to trust in God. Trust in God for what? For his providence? That things will be smooth-sailing? That ultimately, everything works towards good? But how does a Christian concile this trust in God for his goodness with the bad things that happens in the world, whether it is to people around them, or to themselves? Should he go away consoling himself that things could be worse? And if bad things can happen to one who trust in God, then what is the subject matter to which one should trust God in? Surely it can’t be then that one should trust in God to prevent bad things from happening to him or her, because there are fair well too many examples where such bad things indeed happen to good people.

I have settled with the answer that trust in God simply means trust in his will for ultimate goodness, no matter how ambiguous or enigmatic such notion of good may seem. However, does this mean that one should suspend his or her reasoning faculties, or capacity for evaluation when it comes to determining whether good or bad is indeed resulting in his or her life? I have always found it inconsistent that some Christians would say that one should suspend one’s evaluation of God’s goodness, but give thanks for perceived goods that they have received from God. How can you give thanks for something good if you are suspending your evaluation of whether it is good or not? A half-way house approach to this would be to not dismiss the use of such rational faculties in evaluating God, but to acknowledge that there are limits to how such faculties can be used to appraise God. After all, evaluations are subjective, and may be incorrect.

Secondly, what does trust in God entail? A fellow Christian I know would go so far as to suggest that making decisions or personal planning is contradictory to putting one’s trust in God. For him, as far as possible, one should rely on the promptings or direct revelation of God. A moderate like me would try to concile the function of personal planning and decision making as the responsible use of the intellectual faculties that we have been endowed with as human beings. But I have been countered before with the reply that if one makes his or her own decision, one has only oneself to blame if things go wrong for him or her. The mantra is that it is either God’s way, or your wrong way.

One problem I have with such an approach is that I don’t think most Christians actually receive instruction from God in managing their personal affairs. And even if God is speaking, it is usually very subtle, and might be difficult for the individual to discern correctly what is being said, or that it comes from him. I have learnt to keep this reservation of mine more discreet when talking to a “hyper-spiritual” Christian, because I know that saying out this reservation would only invite the sort of condescending perception that I must be some lower-spiritual Christian or even not a Christian at all, thereby not being able to discern God’s instructions.

I am not sure whether it is possible to still adhere by the instruction not to worry, yet deal with the pressure of problems and decision making. I am not sure how to circumvent this problem in trying not to worry as much as I do. There is always the lingering worry that I can be remiss or wrong in my decision making, and face more troubles. And I don’t think being told that I should trust God and not worry sound sensitive or understanding in any manner.

Comparative Religious study - Buddhism

I joined the girls’ cell group at my church last Friday evening. I have been joining the girls cell group session since the start of the year because the guys’ discipleship group which I am in hasn’t been meeting regularly, and I was interested to get to know the girls around in my church a little better. Frankly, I find the gender segregation for cell group for youths around the same age group at my church somewhat inane. It has been that way since I was in secondary school because a youth leader who was at the church back then felt that this was the way in which the respective cell groups should be organized. I can partly understand the reason that gender segregation would allow for group members to talk about things that are personal to the respective gender group, but I thought it was unhealthy in the sense that it build barriers in socializing members of the opposite genders. Anyway, the church scene has changed somewhat in the passing years, along with the leaderhip in the church youth group. It is more autonomous now, and considering that most youths of yesteryears are now in their 20’s, I thought that there is somewhat more prerogative for individuals to choose who they want to socialize with at church.

The girls’ cell group was going through the second part of their comparative religions study on Buddhism. I had missed the study on the first part. They had previously went though comparative religious sessions on other religions like Islam and Hinduism. Typically, the session would seek to teach the basic tenets about the respective religion, and highlight inadequacies or unsatisfying aspects of the religion according to the view of the cell group leader.

The study session touched upon the concept of Nirvana in Buddhism. The handout prepared by the cell group leader defined Nirvana as the cessation of all conditioned thoughts and desire which are purportedly the root of suffering. It then went on to highlight the moral contradiction in the Buddhist doctrine of Nirvana by quoting from an excerpt from David Johnsons’ A Reasoned Look at Asian Religions:

“The moral contradiction is precisely this : A person should want to get saved from desire or selfishness. But wanting to save oneself is just as selfish as any other act for selfish ends. If a person wants enlightenment, he still wants. And wanting, desiring, is the very fault which prevents enlightenment.”

I have never really understood this aspect of Nirvana in Buddhism. It seems to me like a quasi-mythological concept in an otherwise philosophical and secular religion. Why does Buddhism speak of ‘entering Nirvana’, as if Nirvana is some place like the Christian Heaven, when it has been defined by some at least that it is simply a cessation of desire? I am also somewhat skeptical of the critic provided in the handout about the moral contradiction of Nirvana. For one, it appeals to me as somewhat nit-picky, or overly-semantic. So the wish to end desire is also a desire, therefore the contradiction. It is quite similar to another critique levied by some on relativism – “The proposition that everything is relative is an absolute, therefore the contradiction.” I used to be quite impressed with such identification of contradiction by virtue of self-reference, but I am less impressed now because I think that such critiques assume that the proposition must be treated as making an absolute statement. It can be dealt with if the proposition is qualified, such as qualifying Nirvana as being the aim to end all unnecessary desires instead of all desires, or such as qualifying that there are some things which are relative in nature, and others which are absolute. That way, there is no contradiction.

I just don’t wish to dismiss possible merits to the propositions of other religion or ideas simply on the pretext of some logical fallacy which seems trivial to me. And I think that Buddhism might have its valuable insights to offer if we don’t completely dismiss it for some of its radical views. On the one hand, I think it is radical that Buddhism suggests that all suffering is an illusion. I don’t think such philosophy is empathetic to those who are truly suffering. However, I think that Buddhism may be somewhat instructive when it talks about how suffering is a matter of perception. Well, I think that suffering is in someways due to how an individual perceives it. For example, two individuals may be suffering from the same illness or misfortune, but one is more affected by it than another. I think that it helps to have a good attitude and a healthy sense of optimism towards dealing with one’s misfortune or suffering.

What makes God God?

I went for my church cell group meeting this afternoon. My church cell group rarely meet up these days because everyone is tied down to their respective commitments and issues, but I decided that I shall take some initiative to get people together since I am feeling a little better these days. Today’s turn-out at cell group was small, and we had sharing session with one another.

A cell group member that I shall call Jim was giving something like a mini-sermon to a fellow cell group member who is new to the Christian faith. Jim was saying that he had friends who thought that Jesus’ love for humanity by dying himself is not all that superior because they might choose to die as well if their death saved other people. Jim said that God’s love is different from just the death of a human being to save others because God chose to come down to earth to be a human being, even though he was God, and that he died for the undeserving people like us who are sinners. The new member said at the end of Jim’s talk that he would like to read more of the bible to find out about what Jim said.

I didn’t say anything while Jim was giving his evangelical sermon, because I didn’t want to turn the session into a pedantic theological debate; certainly not when there is a new Christian around where I can think that there is a greater purpose to help him in his faith. But since I am with myself now blogging this post, I shall write about the thoughts I have regarding what Jim said.

What Jim said is not something that I would find unfamiliar amongst Christians of my evangelistical circles. They are trying to draw out God’s superiority compared to human beings, even on traits such as love. But I am at the point of time in my life where I am full of doubts of God’s love, and am somewhat cynical and skeptical about some of these assertions made by fellow Christians. Why should God be considered superior in his expression of love just because he is God when he choose to die for humanity? It is not a fair evaluation in my opinion, because someone may choose a similar action if he or she were God as well. Is it unthinkable to ask the question what one would do if he or she were placed in God’s position? Which brings me to my second point of reflection – What makes God God? I wonder whether God asks such a question to himself – “Why am I God instead of something else?” My point is that we as human beings find ourselves bornt into an existence as human beings, not by our will, but simply as how reality would have it. Isn’t God subject to such a mystery of his own existence as well? That he finds himself a superior spiritual entity by virtue of simply ‘being’.

I encountered a matchmaking question on a dating website which is relevant to the point I made above.  That question asks what you would do if one day, God were to tell you that he would like to trade position with you as a human being for a day because he needs to be a human for some reason or another. Would you give ‘God’ his position back after the day has ended? There are some really interesting multiple choice responses that you can choose to this question. One such answer is “Yes, because I have no right to usurp the position of God.” Another is “No, I would make an awesome God.” Yet another is “No, I probably can’t do much worse as a God anyway.”

I have always wished that God was more interventionistic in solving the ills of the world and in my life, but I admit that I don’t really know whether such actions would necessarily be good. I believe that there is a movie with a similar theme about playing God titled Bruce Almighty starring Jim Carrey. The storyline is about a man who gets to play God by God. I haven’t watched it yet, but I have read a synopsis on it, and it seems to feature a moral of the story that one might make things worse rather than better even though one thinks he is using his power as God for the better. And there is that oft quoted pronouncement by Lord Acton that “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I wonder whether that applies to someone as God as well. Yet, I also wonder sometimes, at the risk of sounding heretical, whether I can do some things for the world better than God if I were in his position.