Another touching scene of "goodbyes" in the Bible... notice that despite the grave situation, what Paul's last words to the Ephesian Elders were...
Acts 20:17-38
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Goodbyes
I'm lousy at goodbyes. Period.
To me, there's never a right way to do them. Is the "turn-around-and-never-look-back" approach the best way to contain the floodgates? Or is the "talk-and-share-till-the-cows-come-home" method better? (the one where you share with each other what the other person means to you, how much you'll miss him/her, etc... and at the end of the day, you have to be dragged apart) Or should the tackless, but highly effective, "Last-call-and-I-really-need-to-go-in-now...I'll-call-when-I-get-there" kind of goodbye be employed to save tissues.
I've experienced all the 3 approaches above and lemme tell you... I don't like all of them. Then again, I never liked goodbyes in the first place. Especially the kind which involves someone/s whom you really cherish and love.
All that pondering reminded me of Paul's (the apostle) experience of goodbyes. I flipped to an epistle I just studied-- 1 Thessalonians, and there lay words that spoke of Paul's deep affection for the Thessalonians and the anguish he felt when he had to leave them.
"But, brothers, when we were torn away from you for a short time (in person, not in thought) out of our intense longing we made every effort to see you."
To me, there's never a right way to do them. Is the "turn-around-and-never-look-back" approach the best way to contain the floodgates? Or is the "talk-and-share-till-the-cows-come-home" method better? (the one where you share with each other what the other person means to you, how much you'll miss him/her, etc... and at the end of the day, you have to be dragged apart) Or should the tackless, but highly effective, "Last-call-and-I-really-need-to-go-in-now...I'll-call-when-I-get-there" kind of goodbye be employed to save tissues.
I've experienced all the 3 approaches above and lemme tell you... I don't like all of them. Then again, I never liked goodbyes in the first place. Especially the kind which involves someone/s whom you really cherish and love.
All that pondering reminded me of Paul's (the apostle) experience of goodbyes. I flipped to an epistle I just studied-- 1 Thessalonians, and there lay words that spoke of Paul's deep affection for the Thessalonians and the anguish he felt when he had to leave them.
"But, brothers, when we were torn away from you for a short time (in person, not in thought) out of our intense longing we made every effort to see you."
1 Thess 2:17 [NIV]
From here, Paul used really strong words to describe how he felt about his parting with the Thessalonians. They were very dear to him and Paul treated them like like they were his children. (1 Thess 2:11,12) In fact, Paul described them as being his hope, glory, joy and crown of boasting! (1 Thes 2: 19,20) However, what mattered to Paul in the end wasn't the physical distance between him and the Thessalonians. What mattered most to Paul was their faith and spiritual growth. And though he couldn't go visit them personally to encourage them, he sent another close brother-in-Christ, Timothy... and this was what Paul said when Timothy came back with a good report...
"[7]Therefore, brothers, in all our distress and persecution we were encouraged about you because of your faith. [8]For now we really live, since you are standing firm in the Lord."
1 Thess 3:7,8 [NIV]
Wow...
So finally, to whoever may be finding parting and goodbyes difficult, take heart! Its normal to feel sad ;) However, may we be focused on the right things in life. Though the physical distance apart will stretch the friendship a little, we're all united in Christ! :) And what's important is that we keep the other person in prayer, to pray for what's important:
"[12]May the Lord make your love increase and overflow for each other and for everyone else, just as ours does for you. [13]May he strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless and holy in the presence of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus comes with all his holy ones."
1 Thess 3:12-13 [NIV]
P.S. don't think pam has my blog addy... can phy or sam forward this blog entry to her? i hope it can encourage her :)
Monday, January 24, 2005
Where was God?
Read this article by Andy Ho in the Straits Times on Sat. Though I don't quite agree with his last 2 lines, thank goodness for writers like him...
Jan 22, 2005
Where God was when the tsunami struck
By Andy Ho
Senior Writer
IT HAS been said that the most serious challenge to the belief in God was, is, and will continue to be the problem of evil, a question that has been bandied around quite a lot in the secular media after the Boxing Day tsunami. Some religious folks have tied themselves up in knots of self-doubt over this conundrum, called the problem of 'theodicy'.
Coined by German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) from two Greek words - theos for God, and dike for justice - theodicy posits the question thus: If the all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God controls all of creation, he must also be the author of, and oversees, all evil too. Yet how can a good God permit evil?
The question engaged Leibniz so much that the first and the last book he ever penned, The Philosopher's Confession, written in 1672 at age 26, and The Theodicy, written in 1709, seven years before he died, both grappled with precisely that issue.
Leibniz argued that God was morally bound to create 'the best of all possible worlds'. But since evil exists, God must have seen that this was the best of all possible worlds to create.
My colleague, Chua Mui Hoong, writing in The Sunday Times ('Where was God when the tsunamis hit?', Jan 16), resolved it even more simply by declaring that God may well be omniscient and omnipresent, 'but I no longer think he is omnipotent'.
For her, God is limited by, first, man's free will and, secondly, by natural laws, such as those which decreed that when tectonic plates shift far enough in the right places, tsunamis inevitably follow.
Many incensed and obviously religious readers and colleagues have clamoured for a rebuttal. It was clear to many that, if ever there were a contest, surely God's will must override man's - or else he is a feckless deity not worth my time. It was also clear to many that if God put all natural laws in place, he could also suspend them at will - unless he is a weakling restrained by something he instituted.
Yet that is precisely why Mui Hoong says her God is less than all powerful. However, an imperfect God is not just a contradiction in terms, but also one who deserves no attention, though Mui Hoong still believes in him because she needs to, and because she 'see(s) God in my daily life'.
This is a mistake but she is in good company: Even Leibniz got it wrong when he said that God was morally bound to create the best out of a range of possible worlds, each one also good, so this one must be the best possible, warts and all.
Here, Leibniz put the cart before the horse: God did not choose this world because it is the best. Instead, it is the best just because God chose it.
Then there was David Hume (1711-76), the boldly sceptical Scottish philosopher, who argued that the pervasiveness of evil argues against the very existence of a benevolent God.
But even if Hume had unproblematically defined 'good', 'evil', and 'benevolent' - he didn't - the inference that a benevolent God will prevent all evil doesn't follow.
Hume assumed that a benevolent deity must, by definition, be benevolent to everything in his creation - every inanimate and animate thing, but especially each and every human being.
Must he?
Humeian logic betrays a man-centred view of things that is pervasive today even among religionists. But there is an equally good case for a God- centred view, that he makes all things work together for good, not for all his creatures, but only some whom he chooses so his will is worked out.
In this argument, it is God who decrees and brings to pass everything according to his will, for his own purpose and glory. If that makes God sound selfish and self-centred, think about a god who brings everything to pass for someone else's purpose and glory rather than his: That someone is necessarily a creature, like man, which would make that god an idolater who worships creatures. That cannot be.
In a view that everything is primarily about God - not man - the very existence of evil poses no insuperable problem to the believer. When the waves struck, God was where he always is - on his throne, working out his will, perfectly.
A hard saying, to be sure, but the unbeliever can choose not to deal with such a God.
For the believer, though, this is the God with whom he has to do.
Jan 22, 2005
Where God was when the tsunami struck
By Andy Ho
Senior Writer
IT HAS been said that the most serious challenge to the belief in God was, is, and will continue to be the problem of evil, a question that has been bandied around quite a lot in the secular media after the Boxing Day tsunami. Some religious folks have tied themselves up in knots of self-doubt over this conundrum, called the problem of 'theodicy'.
Coined by German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) from two Greek words - theos for God, and dike for justice - theodicy posits the question thus: If the all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God controls all of creation, he must also be the author of, and oversees, all evil too. Yet how can a good God permit evil?
The question engaged Leibniz so much that the first and the last book he ever penned, The Philosopher's Confession, written in 1672 at age 26, and The Theodicy, written in 1709, seven years before he died, both grappled with precisely that issue.
Leibniz argued that God was morally bound to create 'the best of all possible worlds'. But since evil exists, God must have seen that this was the best of all possible worlds to create.
My colleague, Chua Mui Hoong, writing in The Sunday Times ('Where was God when the tsunamis hit?', Jan 16), resolved it even more simply by declaring that God may well be omniscient and omnipresent, 'but I no longer think he is omnipotent'.
For her, God is limited by, first, man's free will and, secondly, by natural laws, such as those which decreed that when tectonic plates shift far enough in the right places, tsunamis inevitably follow.
Many incensed and obviously religious readers and colleagues have clamoured for a rebuttal. It was clear to many that, if ever there were a contest, surely God's will must override man's - or else he is a feckless deity not worth my time. It was also clear to many that if God put all natural laws in place, he could also suspend them at will - unless he is a weakling restrained by something he instituted.
Yet that is precisely why Mui Hoong says her God is less than all powerful. However, an imperfect God is not just a contradiction in terms, but also one who deserves no attention, though Mui Hoong still believes in him because she needs to, and because she 'see(s) God in my daily life'.
This is a mistake but she is in good company: Even Leibniz got it wrong when he said that God was morally bound to create the best out of a range of possible worlds, each one also good, so this one must be the best possible, warts and all.
Here, Leibniz put the cart before the horse: God did not choose this world because it is the best. Instead, it is the best just because God chose it.
Then there was David Hume (1711-76), the boldly sceptical Scottish philosopher, who argued that the pervasiveness of evil argues against the very existence of a benevolent God.
But even if Hume had unproblematically defined 'good', 'evil', and 'benevolent' - he didn't - the inference that a benevolent God will prevent all evil doesn't follow.
Hume assumed that a benevolent deity must, by definition, be benevolent to everything in his creation - every inanimate and animate thing, but especially each and every human being.
Must he?
Humeian logic betrays a man-centred view of things that is pervasive today even among religionists. But there is an equally good case for a God- centred view, that he makes all things work together for good, not for all his creatures, but only some whom he chooses so his will is worked out.
In this argument, it is God who decrees and brings to pass everything according to his will, for his own purpose and glory. If that makes God sound selfish and self-centred, think about a god who brings everything to pass for someone else's purpose and glory rather than his: That someone is necessarily a creature, like man, which would make that god an idolater who worships creatures. That cannot be.
In a view that everything is primarily about God - not man - the very existence of evil poses no insuperable problem to the believer. When the waves struck, God was where he always is - on his throne, working out his will, perfectly.
A hard saying, to be sure, but the unbeliever can choose not to deal with such a God.
For the believer, though, this is the God with whom he has to do.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Sentimental fool
I'm a dupe for soppy songs, call me a sentimental fool for loving this one...
That's What Friends Are For
And I never thought I'd feel this way
And as far as I'm concerned
I'm glad I got the chance to say
That I do believe I love you
And if I should ever go away
Well then close your eyes and try
To feel the way we do today
And then if you can remember
Chorus:
Keep smiling, keep shining
Knowing you can always count on me, for sure
That's what friends are for
For good times and bad times
I'll be on your side forever more
That's what friends are for
Well you came in loving me
And now there's so much more to see
And so by the way I thank you
Oh and then for the times when we're apart
Well then close your eyes and know
The words are coming from my heart
And then if you can remember
{Chorus}
Dionne Warwick
Friday, January 14, 2005
God's will for my life?
Practical and straight-to-the point message from 1 Thessalonians:
"[3] For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; [4]that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, [5] not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; [6] that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. [7] For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. [8] Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you. [9] Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another, [10] for that indeed is what you are doing to all the brothers throughout Macedonia. But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, [11] and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, [12] so that you may live properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one. "
"[12] We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, [13] and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. [14] And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. [15] See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone. [16] Rejoice always, [17] pray without ceasing, [18] give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. [19] Do not quench the Spirit. [20] Do not despise prophecies, [21] but test everything; hold fast what is good. [22] Abstain from every form of evil.
"[3] For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; [4]that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, [5] not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; [6] that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. [7] For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. [8] Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you. [9] Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another, [10] for that indeed is what you are doing to all the brothers throughout Macedonia. But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, [11] and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, [12] so that you may live properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one. "
1 Thessalonians 4:3-12 [ESV]
"[12] We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, [13] and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. [14] And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. [15] See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone. [16] Rejoice always, [17] pray without ceasing, [18] give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. [19] Do not quench the Spirit. [20] Do not despise prophecies, [21] but test everything; hold fast what is good. [22] Abstain from every form of evil.
1 Thessalonians 5:12-22 [ESV]
And in the context of 1 Thess?
That we might persevere while we wait for our Lord Jesus to come again.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Meet the Kuans
Never knew that wedding planning can take a lot outta you... after 2 days of running around in a suit, I was totally exhausted the whole of Monday. Everywhere I went and everything I did was punctuated with a yawn or two. However, it was a joy to see my 2 dear friends tieing the knot :)
Won't go to great lengths to describe the wedding and wedding dinner... but I was thinking about these verses about marriage in 1 Cor 7...
"[3] The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. [4] For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does."
Won't go to great lengths to describe the wedding and wedding dinner... but I was thinking about these verses about marriage in 1 Cor 7...
"[3] The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. [4] For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does."
1 Cor 7:3,4 [ESV]
For those who have a bit of time now, take a listen to these good sermons... they're the 'Pure Sex' series.
During this wedding, I also had to visit Song of Songs and read bits and pieces of it. And in this book is an incredibly beautiful description of the passion, love and sexual relationship shared between husband and wife.
At the end of the day, I pray for this new couple, Ben & Shiyin Kuan that they'll live their lives in a Christlike manner, enjoying all the privileges and carrying all the burdens of marriage together, with God as the centre of it all.
As for myself? May I learn to surrender all my passions to Christ, trusting that He knows what and who's best for me, in this journey called life.
Monday, January 03, 2005
It is Well with my soul
During yesterday's service, this hymn came to mind... may the lyrics of this timeless hymn echo in our minds this year:
It is Well
When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.
Refrain:
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.
Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.
My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!
And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll;
The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend,
Even so, it is well with my soul.
Horatio G. Spafford, 1873
What a way to start the new year...
2 Weddings and a tsunami...
What a way to start the new year...
Looking forward to the 2 weddings that I'm majorly involved in. The first one is this sat, yes this sat! Haha... the groom's kinda getting stressed out and he's passing his stress to his Best Men (I'm one of them) but hey, he's a fantastic friend and its his special day, so... tahan :p
The second is on the 22nd of Jan and now, I'm distributing his wedding invitation cards and getting him get the RSVP's too...
My mum was commenting just a few days ago that it seems like I'm getting married! But well, that's the 2 weddings bit... now, the tsunami...
Think enough's said. However, what Sumiko Tan wrote it in Yesterday's Sunday Times made me think... This piece of hers was a moving response to what happened but, does this response differ from that of a Christian?
And if its not much different, shouldn't that ring alarm bells in us? I mean, if nothing's different, then Christ just seems to be another morals-pushing, do-gooder who wants to make the world a better place. However, since Christ is more than that, then what's an appropriate response from a Christian? What should be different about a Christian's start to a new year?
I'm starting this new year with these questions in mind, will you ask yourselves these questions too?
What a way to start the new year...
Looking forward to the 2 weddings that I'm majorly involved in. The first one is this sat, yes this sat! Haha... the groom's kinda getting stressed out and he's passing his stress to his Best Men (I'm one of them) but hey, he's a fantastic friend and its his special day, so... tahan :p
The second is on the 22nd of Jan and now, I'm distributing his wedding invitation cards and getting him get the RSVP's too...
My mum was commenting just a few days ago that it seems like I'm getting married! But well, that's the 2 weddings bit... now, the tsunami...
Think enough's said. However, what Sumiko Tan wrote it in Yesterday's Sunday Times made me think... This piece of hers was a moving response to what happened but, does this response differ from that of a Christian?
And if its not much different, shouldn't that ring alarm bells in us? I mean, if nothing's different, then Christ just seems to be another morals-pushing, do-gooder who wants to make the world a better place. However, since Christ is more than that, then what's an appropriate response from a Christian? What should be different about a Christian's start to a new year?
I'm starting this new year with these questions in mind, will you ask yourselves these questions too?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
