From MCC in 1995 when I first believed, I have read this poem nearly each new year.
Another year is dawning, dear Father, let it be
In working or in waiting, another year with Thee.
Another year of progress, another year of praise,
Another year of proving Thy presence all the days.
Another year of mercies, of faithfulness and grace,
Another year of gladness in the shining of Thy face;
Another year of leaning upon Thy loving breast;
Another year of trusting, of quiet, happy rest.
Another year of service, of witness for Thy love,
Another year of training for holier work above.
Another year is dawning, dear Father, let it be
On earth, or else in Heaven, another year for Thee.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
O' Hare airport musings- waiting on a delayed flight- Facebook, Friendships and my usual self-loathing
I wonder why we have so many friends on Facebook. Oh, I'm not the only one who is wondering, I know. Our pastor today mentioned a NY times columnist who invited his 700 odd FB friends for a party and after receiving 60 RSVPs only 1 showed up.
I have about 170. Many have been good pals in the letsaytimes. I add them on but never post any updates. I do read many updates; but I ask myself- why do *I* add friends on FB? Besides the updates could it be that I would just like to be connected without actually reaching out to some of them? I may desire their presence but perhaps not yet a refresh of the acquaintance.
Wonder if I've made God just such a Facebook friend. He is always there, and when I don't feel his presence I get spiritual angst and simply make sure he is just there.
Wonder if I've made my wife and daughter just such FB friends.
Oh, I'm exaggerating, aren't I? Surely God, Alma, Emma, and my nearest and dearest are closer to me than that! If things aren't that bad, do they not resemble a Facebook relationship when we crave their presence but not their living in our living? Lives entwined but are we truly living them together? Sharing them?
Please, Father God, keep me from the sin of indifference and the sin of lukewarmness to your longing.
I have about 170. Many have been good pals in the letsaytimes. I add them on but never post any updates. I do read many updates; but I ask myself- why do *I* add friends on FB? Besides the updates could it be that I would just like to be connected without actually reaching out to some of them? I may desire their presence but perhaps not yet a refresh of the acquaintance.
Wonder if I've made God just such a Facebook friend. He is always there, and when I don't feel his presence I get spiritual angst and simply make sure he is just there.
Wonder if I've made my wife and daughter just such FB friends.
Oh, I'm exaggerating, aren't I? Surely God, Alma, Emma, and my nearest and dearest are closer to me than that! If things aren't that bad, do they not resemble a Facebook relationship when we crave their presence but not their living in our living? Lives entwined but are we truly living them together? Sharing them?
Please, Father God, keep me from the sin of indifference and the sin of lukewarmness to your longing.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
The Tie That Binds- Sandra McCracken
I found this song on Sandra McCracken's Youtube account. As this was written to share the grief of a friend, it resonates with me as well. Sandra McCracken, The Tie That Binds, lyrics and video of her playing the song from her home:
Video:
The sorrow of a friend
From a long way we stand
Grief is second hand
But I’ll send my tears in a locket
Amelia smiles under lights & wires
Thorns for every flower
We number every hour
And live the days we are given
Oh, the pain
It makes you feel alive
Oh, the broken heart is the tie that binds
And I pray to God, these things will be made right
When the morning shines
On tear stained eyes
Oh we shall overcome
The Father gave the Son
To break the curse we are under
Oh the pain that no man can escape
Oh the sting of death, the empty grave,
And I pray to God where comfort has no place
When our tired eyes look through the veil
The colors are so pale but we raise high the sail
And call the winds to carry us home
Call the winds to carry us home.
More of her songs:
Video:
The sorrow of a friend
From a long way we stand
Grief is second hand
But I’ll send my tears in a locket
Amelia smiles under lights & wires
Thorns for every flower
We number every hour
And live the days we are given
Oh, the pain
It makes you feel alive
Oh, the broken heart is the tie that binds
And I pray to God, these things will be made right
When the morning shines
On tear stained eyes
Oh we shall overcome
The Father gave the Son
To break the curse we are under
Oh the pain that no man can escape
Oh the sting of death, the empty grave,
And I pray to God where comfort has no place
When our tired eyes look through the veil
The colors are so pale but we raise high the sail
And call the winds to carry us home
Call the winds to carry us home.
More of her songs:
Friday, August 7, 2009
A Tribute to My Suffering Loved Ones
"It may be that the gulfs will wash us down;
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And though we are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are—
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will;
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
- from Ulysses, Alfred Lord Tennyson
I'm reminded of our many relatives and friends, made weak by many tumours, diabetes, cardiac issues, abnormal blood pressure, losing jobs, tumultuous relationships, daunting commitments especially those made to God... and I marvel at the human spirit that God made and looks to God for strength.
That which we are, we are. Strong in will, to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Amen.
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And though we are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are—
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will;
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
- from Ulysses, Alfred Lord Tennyson
I'm reminded of our many relatives and friends, made weak by many tumours, diabetes, cardiac issues, abnormal blood pressure, losing jobs, tumultuous relationships, daunting commitments especially those made to God... and I marvel at the human spirit that God made and looks to God for strength.
That which we are, we are. Strong in will, to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Amen.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The 800 Pound Gorilla
A couple of my friends responded to my last post. Thomas responded as below (sic):
Susan responded this way (sic):
I'm examining my own thoughts and wondering why I'm unable to trust fully in God's faithfulness in spite of repeated demonstrations and the Bible's insistence on his beneficence. I wonder why. Could it be that it is tougher to put into practice what I claim to believe with my lips and mind? I think that is part of it, but there may be something else.
It takes me to a sermon I heard in our church a year or so ago. Based on the book of Philippians, the pastor asked us the question: 'What is the 800-pound gorilla in the room?' He answered it for us: Death. Paul is writing this joyful letter with dealth looming large in his prison cell, but he is the one who is encouraging the Philippians, asking them to rejoice in the Lord always. The pastor also let us know that death is the 800-pound gorilla at all times whether we acknowledge it or not. We are so unused to the idea of the unpredictability of death that we are almost always unprepared for it. Yet it is the one certainty in our physical lives.
When a situation like this happens to us our thoughts turn towards our earthly responsibilities. We try to plug the holes that we can and we are forced to trust God beyond that. Many of us do this with difficulty, with trembling hearts and hoping against hope.
What do we do when this happens to a loved one? When it is an unbeliever who is suffering? Our need to share the Gospel is so imperative and the importance of offering temporal comfort so pressing, and we feel the pressure of the situation much more than the comfort of God's beneficence. Does it comfort us that God is in control when we know that someone is dying without Christ?
The only comfort I have in this situation is this: if we care so much about unbelievers, how much more does God care? He died for them and we know he does care. We can trust him fully to deal with all of us with perfect justice and perfect mercy. If we know that these unbelievers die to face an eternity away from God's presence, will we be truly comforted in eternity? When Paul makes the comment, '...I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race...' (Romans 9:3), what does he mean? Isn't this the sentiment of a man in agony over his brothers' damnation? If that is the way we feel as believers, does not the Holy Spirit grieve with inexpressible grief as to those who are perishing? When the Bible tells us that God Himself will wipe away each tear from our eyes in eternity, does it mean that our delight will be mixed with this grief? Do we need to be so comforted in heaven- or am I reading too much into the text?
I've said before that I'm happy to simply stir the pot even if I do not find answers. There must be a perfect explanation for this, I'm sure, which I do not understand. 'Beneficence' is one of the thirty cent words that theologians throw around to describe God's character. Thi is basic to our understanding of God and is central to God's actions throughout the Bible and through the ages. I do not doubt it at all. But if we were to take this beneficence for granted, I cannot imagine how we would ever witness to an unbeliever. As I have said before, the Bible contains verses which preserve this tension ('work out your own salvation with fear and trembling') while we rest in the knowledge that God's salvific action is sufficient for our redemption.
We can so amply display God's glory and truth through the love of Christ that is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. I believe that the stage settings are God's domain and we rejoice in the knowledge of the fact that He is always with us. That is His promise. So yes we can be sure that nothing that is not in God's will can happen in our lives. The verses that come to mind are (KJV), Matthew 10:
29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.
And also (KJV) Philippians 4:
6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.
7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
" In everything by prayer...with thanksgiving..."
Isn't this suggesting that in all things we can give thanks knowing that God will respond in accordance to His love and mercy towards us? We can rest in His faithfulness. We can pray without a presumed outcome and simply praise God for his goodness and celebrate his companionship knowing that our circumstances are in His hands.When Jesus prayed in the garden of gethsamene was he not rolling His cares upon His father.He was not trying to influence God's will was He? He didnt have to do that He had only to ask and God would have sent Him his heavenly hosts. He was simply drawing comfort from His father in heaven and trusting God's will with the eventuality. God can do far more than we can ask or imagine. And the Bible also says that the Lord knows our prayers even before it is on our lips.
(KJV)Matthew 6:
8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
If He is for us who can be against us?
Susan responded this way (sic):
In so many of life's situations we are all doubters and to see how God works through all of our shortcomings and the process of perfecting His will for us is nothing short of amazing. His faithfulness in making sure we run the race and come out victorious has never failed to touch me. More and more I am convinced that He will stop at nothing to ensure that we are people of godly character and the standards are His and not ours.
Many times, I feel like He has forgotten me and I am in this abyss with no help or support. But from somewhere He comes and shows me how much He cares. It does not mean that the problem disappears but just that He is with us and has not forgotten us.
I'm examining my own thoughts and wondering why I'm unable to trust fully in God's faithfulness in spite of repeated demonstrations and the Bible's insistence on his beneficence. I wonder why. Could it be that it is tougher to put into practice what I claim to believe with my lips and mind? I think that is part of it, but there may be something else.
It takes me to a sermon I heard in our church a year or so ago. Based on the book of Philippians, the pastor asked us the question: 'What is the 800-pound gorilla in the room?' He answered it for us: Death. Paul is writing this joyful letter with dealth looming large in his prison cell, but he is the one who is encouraging the Philippians, asking them to rejoice in the Lord always. The pastor also let us know that death is the 800-pound gorilla at all times whether we acknowledge it or not. We are so unused to the idea of the unpredictability of death that we are almost always unprepared for it. Yet it is the one certainty in our physical lives.
When a situation like this happens to us our thoughts turn towards our earthly responsibilities. We try to plug the holes that we can and we are forced to trust God beyond that. Many of us do this with difficulty, with trembling hearts and hoping against hope.
What do we do when this happens to a loved one? When it is an unbeliever who is suffering? Our need to share the Gospel is so imperative and the importance of offering temporal comfort so pressing, and we feel the pressure of the situation much more than the comfort of God's beneficence. Does it comfort us that God is in control when we know that someone is dying without Christ?
The only comfort I have in this situation is this: if we care so much about unbelievers, how much more does God care? He died for them and we know he does care. We can trust him fully to deal with all of us with perfect justice and perfect mercy. If we know that these unbelievers die to face an eternity away from God's presence, will we be truly comforted in eternity? When Paul makes the comment, '...I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race...' (Romans 9:3), what does he mean? Isn't this the sentiment of a man in agony over his brothers' damnation? If that is the way we feel as believers, does not the Holy Spirit grieve with inexpressible grief as to those who are perishing? When the Bible tells us that God Himself will wipe away each tear from our eyes in eternity, does it mean that our delight will be mixed with this grief? Do we need to be so comforted in heaven- or am I reading too much into the text?
I've said before that I'm happy to simply stir the pot even if I do not find answers. There must be a perfect explanation for this, I'm sure, which I do not understand. 'Beneficence' is one of the thirty cent words that theologians throw around to describe God's character. Thi is basic to our understanding of God and is central to God's actions throughout the Bible and through the ages. I do not doubt it at all. But if we were to take this beneficence for granted, I cannot imagine how we would ever witness to an unbeliever. As I have said before, the Bible contains verses which preserve this tension ('work out your own salvation with fear and trembling') while we rest in the knowledge that God's salvific action is sufficient for our redemption.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Praise God From Whom All Blessings Flow
I generally share news of hopes that never came to fruition, of coping with such disappointments and the nature of our faith. Four weeks ago we were in Atlanta at the wake of one of our relatives. He had died of testicular cancer that could have been cured 2 years ago but it was misdiagnosed and now he had died after suffering a heart condition in response to the powerful chemo he went through.
Other issues- difficulties at my work and for my friends at work, our own health issues, several acquaintances suffering from cancer, the death of the relative I talked about earlier, their family's subsequent emotional breakdowns. Last week when another relative was diagnosed with brain tumour (glioma) after suffering a siezure, Alma came to my home office and wept, saying 'I don't know how much more bad news I can take.' We talked on this topic that night and came to the inescapable conclusion we had come to before many times: were it not for the hope of resurrection, life is simply not worth living.
Our relative's surgery was scheduled to be on June 2nd (Tuesday) so we flew to Ft Lauderdale and stayed at their house to ease the process. As we went there the doctors let us know that it was a low grade glioma, so we had some hope.
In the morning before the surgery I read through John 11, the raising of Lazarus from the dead. I shared this with the patiet's wife as well. I could put myself in the shoes of each of the doubters who questioned Jesus throughout this episode. Almost every word out of the mouths of the disciples, Martha and the Jewish frrieds of Mary and Martha are doubting comments. Let me illustrate how these doubters said almost the same things I did.
Verse 3: So the sisters sent word to Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick."
Vijai: Now what, Lord? You know he is sick.
Verse 4 When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it."
Vijai (in prayer): I know you do all things to conform to your will. I believe your will cannot be changed. We simply fit into it with our prayers. I know in some way you will demonstrate your glory whether the surgery is a success or not.
Verses 8 and 9 (the disciples): "But Rabbi," they said, "a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?" Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours of daylight? A man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world's light. It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light."
Vijai (reading this): Does this mean that when we are guided by God nothing bad will happen to us? Does it mean that if we guided by God, our being stoned or not stones depends entirely on his will; and his will is always good?
Verses 12-14 12His disciples replied, "Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better." Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. So then he told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead, and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him."
Alma to Vijai: Perhaps this is meant for the whole of the family (the majority of whom are unbelievers). I think a healing will result and it will shake up the family.
Verse 16: Then Thomas (called Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him."
Vijai (thinking): This is the verse I most identify with. It is easier to think of ourselves as dying with Jesus than living with Him. I'm so thankful that the Lord gave us these remarks and others from Thomas, who, also being Kerala's patron saint, has endeared himself to us. Sketpcism, doubt, questions with no answers- these sum up my response to Jesus. I believe that the Bible if 100 percent true- I just find it hard to apply it to my life situations. I also find it tough to interpret it correctly, especially when it comes to hoping for a healing from God.
Verse 21: "Lord," Martha said to Jesus, "if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask."
Vijai: Though I do not say the same thing (I know Jesus knows everything and is present everywhere, but I act like he doesn't and he isn't), my attitude is similar.
Verses 23 through 27: Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" "Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world."
Vijai: I do not know how to interpret Martha's thoughts. I tend to answer important questions in life on Jesus' behalf quite often, basing them on my understanding of theology. For instance, I prayed for Tommy for a healing but I always make room for a different result. This isn't like Jesus' prayer at the Garden, "Nevertheless, not my will, but your be done." I do not sweat drops of blood in asking for a miracle against incredible odds. Mine is the voice of doubt.
Verses 32 and 33: When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died." When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled.
Vijai: Jesus cares about our suffering. I'm convinced he doesn't let us go under the scalpel unless there is a special purpose for it. Under normal circumstances I think it is not the right response on our part to keep expecting the worst to happen and thereby hedge our bets.
Verse 35: Jesus wept.
Vijai: If this verse and others like it had been part of our church's Scripture memorization program I could have done it on my head. I'm not sure why Jesus wept when he knew that Lazarus was going to be raised. Did he weep because he saw that Lazarus' loved ones were grieving? Did he weep because of the mniracle about to happen. We often weep after a successful surgery. Were these tears of joy? John doesn't give us a clue.
Verses 36-37: Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him!" But some of them said, "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?"
Vijai: I rationalize it like this. I know God is all-powerful. I know God cares for us, even for our temporal well-being. I know Jesus never refused anyone who asked Him for healing, even ones who were not thankful to him, or people who did things he asked them not to do (like the man by the pool who told the priests about his healing). But I have seen prayers for healing whih were not answered in the way the I wanted them to be. This means that I have no control over such things. It also means that there are circumstances in which our temporal suffering is not negotiable. After all, we all die physical deaths. Even Lazarus died a second time. So, the question is, while Jesus can heal, will Jesus heal this time? And if Jesus does not heal, then what is my response? The above verses reveal my attitude though I would not paraphrase it that way.
Verses 38- 40: Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39"Take away the stone," he said. "But, Lord," said Martha, the sister of the dead man, "by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days." Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?"
Vijai: In the hospital prior to the surgery a Latin American believer came into the hospital to speak to our relative. He talked about his own healing and prayed with all of us. He said to our relative that if he believed he will be healed. All my doubts came racing into my mind and I wondered how anyone could say such things with certainty. But I was also struck by the fact that while I struggled to witness credibly to my relative, this man was so direct. "Do you believe in the Lord Jesus as your persoal Lord and Saviour?" "Do you believe what the Bible says?"
Alma and I talked afterwards and wondered if we should seek help in our church as to how to witness. It was pretty easy in the days I first became a believer. Wide eyed and excited, I would simply describe the process of my conversion and talk about the 'before' and 'after' scenarios, and leave the rest to God. Today I'm stymied, especially during such situations in which I struggle with how to meet the family's desire for temporal comfort with eternal hope. I also wonder if I may be simply perceived as being opportunistic. Before the surgery I prayed for healing with nor preconditions. Perhaps subconsciously I may have made room for a different result by I didn't dare to voice it in prayer!
Verse 43-44: When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.
Vijai: After the surgery we went into the recovery room to talk to our relative. The surgery was successful. The doctors said they could get most, if not all, of the tumour out. There was no blood loss. It was the best prognosis and the best result. When we went in to talk to him, I noticed he was bound with strips of cloth, and this verse came to mind, "The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face."
Verses 45-46: Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.
Vijai: If miracles demonstrate God's glory to some, they also solidify the resolve of those who want to disbelieve. It is amazing enough that after a miracle of such proportions some of the witnesses plotted Jesus' death. How does this apply to us?
One of the many believers who had come to see our relative let his wife know that God will heal him and when He does, be sure to let people know about it. I'm not known for sharing news of such blessings as I am for sharing bad news and trying to make sense of it. Well, this is my attempt to understand this wonderful blessing. As you can see I have a hard time understanding blessings as well.
Do I still think that life is not worth living if not for the hope of resurrection? In a larger sense, yes. But in the here and now I just find it worth living if only to share God's love with people- in all kids of ways, sharing the Gospel, comforting them in their difficulties and other ways. As 'tweeners' who live between the 2 earthly advents of Jesus, our purpose in the world is to win the world for Him.
Other issues- difficulties at my work and for my friends at work, our own health issues, several acquaintances suffering from cancer, the death of the relative I talked about earlier, their family's subsequent emotional breakdowns. Last week when another relative was diagnosed with brain tumour (glioma) after suffering a siezure, Alma came to my home office and wept, saying 'I don't know how much more bad news I can take.' We talked on this topic that night and came to the inescapable conclusion we had come to before many times: were it not for the hope of resurrection, life is simply not worth living.
Our relative's surgery was scheduled to be on June 2nd (Tuesday) so we flew to Ft Lauderdale and stayed at their house to ease the process. As we went there the doctors let us know that it was a low grade glioma, so we had some hope.
In the morning before the surgery I read through John 11, the raising of Lazarus from the dead. I shared this with the patiet's wife as well. I could put myself in the shoes of each of the doubters who questioned Jesus throughout this episode. Almost every word out of the mouths of the disciples, Martha and the Jewish frrieds of Mary and Martha are doubting comments. Let me illustrate how these doubters said almost the same things I did.
Verse 3: So the sisters sent word to Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick."
Vijai: Now what, Lord? You know he is sick.
Verse 4 When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it."
Vijai (in prayer): I know you do all things to conform to your will. I believe your will cannot be changed. We simply fit into it with our prayers. I know in some way you will demonstrate your glory whether the surgery is a success or not.
Verses 8 and 9 (the disciples): "But Rabbi," they said, "a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?" Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours of daylight? A man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world's light. It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light."
Vijai (reading this): Does this mean that when we are guided by God nothing bad will happen to us? Does it mean that if we guided by God, our being stoned or not stones depends entirely on his will; and his will is always good?
Verses 12-14 12His disciples replied, "Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better." Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. So then he told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead, and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him."
Alma to Vijai: Perhaps this is meant for the whole of the family (the majority of whom are unbelievers). I think a healing will result and it will shake up the family.
Verse 16: Then Thomas (called Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him."
Vijai (thinking): This is the verse I most identify with. It is easier to think of ourselves as dying with Jesus than living with Him. I'm so thankful that the Lord gave us these remarks and others from Thomas, who, also being Kerala's patron saint, has endeared himself to us. Sketpcism, doubt, questions with no answers- these sum up my response to Jesus. I believe that the Bible if 100 percent true- I just find it hard to apply it to my life situations. I also find it tough to interpret it correctly, especially when it comes to hoping for a healing from God.
Verse 21: "Lord," Martha said to Jesus, "if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask."
Vijai: Though I do not say the same thing (I know Jesus knows everything and is present everywhere, but I act like he doesn't and he isn't), my attitude is similar.
Verses 23 through 27: Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" "Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world."
Vijai: I do not know how to interpret Martha's thoughts. I tend to answer important questions in life on Jesus' behalf quite often, basing them on my understanding of theology. For instance, I prayed for Tommy for a healing but I always make room for a different result. This isn't like Jesus' prayer at the Garden, "Nevertheless, not my will, but your be done." I do not sweat drops of blood in asking for a miracle against incredible odds. Mine is the voice of doubt.
Verses 32 and 33: When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died." When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled.
Vijai: Jesus cares about our suffering. I'm convinced he doesn't let us go under the scalpel unless there is a special purpose for it. Under normal circumstances I think it is not the right response on our part to keep expecting the worst to happen and thereby hedge our bets.
Verse 35: Jesus wept.
Vijai: If this verse and others like it had been part of our church's Scripture memorization program I could have done it on my head. I'm not sure why Jesus wept when he knew that Lazarus was going to be raised. Did he weep because he saw that Lazarus' loved ones were grieving? Did he weep because of the mniracle about to happen. We often weep after a successful surgery. Were these tears of joy? John doesn't give us a clue.
Verses 36-37: Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him!" But some of them said, "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?"
Vijai: I rationalize it like this. I know God is all-powerful. I know God cares for us, even for our temporal well-being. I know Jesus never refused anyone who asked Him for healing, even ones who were not thankful to him, or people who did things he asked them not to do (like the man by the pool who told the priests about his healing). But I have seen prayers for healing whih were not answered in the way the I wanted them to be. This means that I have no control over such things. It also means that there are circumstances in which our temporal suffering is not negotiable. After all, we all die physical deaths. Even Lazarus died a second time. So, the question is, while Jesus can heal, will Jesus heal this time? And if Jesus does not heal, then what is my response? The above verses reveal my attitude though I would not paraphrase it that way.
Verses 38- 40: Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39"Take away the stone," he said. "But, Lord," said Martha, the sister of the dead man, "by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days." Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?"
Vijai: In the hospital prior to the surgery a Latin American believer came into the hospital to speak to our relative. He talked about his own healing and prayed with all of us. He said to our relative that if he believed he will be healed. All my doubts came racing into my mind and I wondered how anyone could say such things with certainty. But I was also struck by the fact that while I struggled to witness credibly to my relative, this man was so direct. "Do you believe in the Lord Jesus as your persoal Lord and Saviour?" "Do you believe what the Bible says?"
Alma and I talked afterwards and wondered if we should seek help in our church as to how to witness. It was pretty easy in the days I first became a believer. Wide eyed and excited, I would simply describe the process of my conversion and talk about the 'before' and 'after' scenarios, and leave the rest to God. Today I'm stymied, especially during such situations in which I struggle with how to meet the family's desire for temporal comfort with eternal hope. I also wonder if I may be simply perceived as being opportunistic. Before the surgery I prayed for healing with nor preconditions. Perhaps subconsciously I may have made room for a different result by I didn't dare to voice it in prayer!
Verse 43-44: When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.
Vijai: After the surgery we went into the recovery room to talk to our relative. The surgery was successful. The doctors said they could get most, if not all, of the tumour out. There was no blood loss. It was the best prognosis and the best result. When we went in to talk to him, I noticed he was bound with strips of cloth, and this verse came to mind, "The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face."
Verses 45-46: Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.
Vijai: If miracles demonstrate God's glory to some, they also solidify the resolve of those who want to disbelieve. It is amazing enough that after a miracle of such proportions some of the witnesses plotted Jesus' death. How does this apply to us?
One of the many believers who had come to see our relative let his wife know that God will heal him and when He does, be sure to let people know about it. I'm not known for sharing news of such blessings as I am for sharing bad news and trying to make sense of it. Well, this is my attempt to understand this wonderful blessing. As you can see I have a hard time understanding blessings as well.
Do I still think that life is not worth living if not for the hope of resurrection? In a larger sense, yes. But in the here and now I just find it worth living if only to share God's love with people- in all kids of ways, sharing the Gospel, comforting them in their difficulties and other ways. As 'tweeners' who live between the 2 earthly advents of Jesus, our purpose in the world is to win the world for Him.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Gay Penguins and Our Response
A school district in Alameda, CA is in the news due to their curriculum that includes a book on two male homosexual penguins raising a baby penguin. School authorities are now trying to make it compulsory for all their students to attend the class. The age group for this class- 5 year olds.
Parents are protesting this. The story is carried on Fox News and only a few other mainstream media outlets like the San Francisco Chronicle. Comments to the reports as usual shed more heat than light. Pro-LGTB rights commentators say they cannot support hatred as shown by the protesting parents. The overriding themes are bigotry, hate, moral arrogance, ad hominem attacks on Christians. Familiar topics in the last 10 years of Right vs Left.
As a Christian I'm convinced that our uber-activism in the political sphere and the corresponding lack of interest in showing real love to the world around us have sunk our reputation. Besides the reputation it has also shown us to ourselves what we have become. A culture that insists on morality by the lawbook and not by the heart.
In this context those who hold to the Biblical position that homosexual behaviour is sinful and part of the fallen world are in the dock to answer for bigotry. Many of us will not deny the basic inalienable rights guaranteed under the Constitution to anyone, even if the beneficiaries contradict our moral values. Most of us will allow for hospital visitations and even civil unions. Some of us have deeply held concerns about adoptions by LGTB couples that stem from our belief that immorality is then allowed to spread. Most of us do not like the idea of our society and government reaching out to our kids with the idea that LGTB behaviour is morally sound. Even withholding our religious convictions, these issues are being hotly debated among lawmakers and many LGTB rights issues are won after a tough fight. In such circumstances, to introduce gay curricula into schools is not right. I think it is also very clear to those making the argument about our protests being bigoted and hateful that the real issue is not hate at all; only our convictions about morality. This may seem judgmental to some, but even a cursory reading of our stance on this issue will reveal to them that our condemnation of immoral behaviour is not a condemnation of the person. Indeed we know that we have huge planks in our own eyes. Pornography, infidelity, insincerity in the puplit, moneymaking scams are all gnawing at the vitals in some of our churches and perhaps even in our lives. Our faith seeks to rescue the sinner from sin.
But another possibility presents itself. We have been fighting these issues in the legal and political sphere. How can we ever rescue the sinner when we do not have love for the sinner? As Mark Young, President of Denver Seminary, said in one of his chapel addresses at DTS (Dallas), when we cast our votes, consider voting on the basis of what will help me present the Gospel in the most effective manner. Will we win hearts by our love and compassion? It is a sad reality that today we Christians are known for bigotry to the homosexual community than our love.
Yes, the Gospel is offensive. We cannot avoid stepping on anyone's toes when we speak the truth- even when we do so in love. But let the Gospel be offensive- do *WE* have to be offensive as well? Perhaps we feel we are standing up for the truth when we get offensive about these topics. Malcolm Muggeridge once remarked (about the Leftward leaning who protest against pro-lifers, right-to-lifers, et al) that it is far easier to hold a placard in the streets and shout a few slogans than actually practise moral behaviour. Worse, this also blinds us to our own sins. We think our moral outrage, rather than love, covers a multitude of sins. Maybe we should look at ourselves and ask this question: am I reflecting Jesus' love? The answer may surprise us- let's hope it will not scare us.
Parents are protesting this. The story is carried on Fox News and only a few other mainstream media outlets like the San Francisco Chronicle. Comments to the reports as usual shed more heat than light. Pro-LGTB rights commentators say they cannot support hatred as shown by the protesting parents. The overriding themes are bigotry, hate, moral arrogance, ad hominem attacks on Christians. Familiar topics in the last 10 years of Right vs Left.
As a Christian I'm convinced that our uber-activism in the political sphere and the corresponding lack of interest in showing real love to the world around us have sunk our reputation. Besides the reputation it has also shown us to ourselves what we have become. A culture that insists on morality by the lawbook and not by the heart.
In this context those who hold to the Biblical position that homosexual behaviour is sinful and part of the fallen world are in the dock to answer for bigotry. Many of us will not deny the basic inalienable rights guaranteed under the Constitution to anyone, even if the beneficiaries contradict our moral values. Most of us will allow for hospital visitations and even civil unions. Some of us have deeply held concerns about adoptions by LGTB couples that stem from our belief that immorality is then allowed to spread. Most of us do not like the idea of our society and government reaching out to our kids with the idea that LGTB behaviour is morally sound. Even withholding our religious convictions, these issues are being hotly debated among lawmakers and many LGTB rights issues are won after a tough fight. In such circumstances, to introduce gay curricula into schools is not right. I think it is also very clear to those making the argument about our protests being bigoted and hateful that the real issue is not hate at all; only our convictions about morality. This may seem judgmental to some, but even a cursory reading of our stance on this issue will reveal to them that our condemnation of immoral behaviour is not a condemnation of the person. Indeed we know that we have huge planks in our own eyes. Pornography, infidelity, insincerity in the puplit, moneymaking scams are all gnawing at the vitals in some of our churches and perhaps even in our lives. Our faith seeks to rescue the sinner from sin.
But another possibility presents itself. We have been fighting these issues in the legal and political sphere. How can we ever rescue the sinner when we do not have love for the sinner? As Mark Young, President of Denver Seminary, said in one of his chapel addresses at DTS (Dallas), when we cast our votes, consider voting on the basis of what will help me present the Gospel in the most effective manner. Will we win hearts by our love and compassion? It is a sad reality that today we Christians are known for bigotry to the homosexual community than our love.
Yes, the Gospel is offensive. We cannot avoid stepping on anyone's toes when we speak the truth- even when we do so in love. But let the Gospel be offensive- do *WE* have to be offensive as well? Perhaps we feel we are standing up for the truth when we get offensive about these topics. Malcolm Muggeridge once remarked (about the Leftward leaning who protest against pro-lifers, right-to-lifers, et al) that it is far easier to hold a placard in the streets and shout a few slogans than actually practise moral behaviour. Worse, this also blinds us to our own sins. We think our moral outrage, rather than love, covers a multitude of sins. Maybe we should look at ourselves and ask this question: am I reflecting Jesus' love? The answer may surprise us- let's hope it will not scare us.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Waterboarding- Why are Christians Silent?
I'm apalled to hear that Dick Cheney is continuing to justify the practice of waterboarding. It is more painful to witness the silence and the absence of outrage on the part of Christians on this subject. Our leaders have become wary of the Left when making any statement that distances ourselves from the Right. Isn't this sad?
In 2005 Albert Mohler wrote an article unquivocally stating that no torture should be acceptable to us. William Land recently mentioned that torture should never be supported by Christians, no matter what.
An excerpt from Mohler's article nuances his stance by sympathizing with those may find their thoughts drifting in the direction of waterboarding:
Nevertheless, Mohler goes on to rule out creating any rules that would actually legitimize even some forms of torture:
Then he goes on to give a little room:
I wish I could really follow this line of reasoning. Mohler has my sympathy because it is difficult to put it into words. All I can understand by reading between the lines is that we Christians are trying our best to cut some slack for those whose job it is to protect us. Yes, it is true enough that often we do things that are never right but may take the place of a greater sin and therefore unavoidable. In the current discussion on torture is this a factor? Was waterboarding practised at Guantanamo Bay only with extreme moral consciousness and a sense of deep humility?
Who are we kidding? When no law exists to hold the torturers accountable and no law exists to keep the public fully aware of these proceedings (as Mohler suggests we must do), how can we be silent over this moral outrage that has happened in our day and age? Perhaps our sin lies not so much in the fact that we are nuanced in our condemnation of such torture as a legal practice as in the fact we are silent here and now, when WE have broken the rules, we are guilty of indecency. Why is our desire to protect our soldiers' reputation and the image of a fair and just nation larger than our desire for righteousness and justice? Will this somehow make our enemies stronger and more spiteful of us? How disgusting of us to pretend that our image is more important than our morality!
If we can be so bold to criticize nations such as India for human rights abuses when fighting terror or failing to protect Hindu nationalists from murdering evangelical Christians on the pretext of coersive conversion or covert CIA operations, why can we not hold our own country accountable? We seem to have taken the idea of the "New Jerusalem" so literally and so much to heart!
In 2005 Albert Mohler wrote an article unquivocally stating that no torture should be acceptable to us. William Land recently mentioned that torture should never be supported by Christians, no matter what.
An excerpt from Mohler's article nuances his stance by sympathizing with those may find their thoughts drifting in the direction of waterboarding:
As Augustine argued, the Christian soldier may kill enemy combatants as a matter of true necessity, but he can never assume that in doing so he has not sinned. Augustine's "melancholy soldier" knows that the use of deadly force against another human being is, generally speaking, sin. Yet, he also knows that a failure or refusal to kill can at times be a sin worse in both intention and effect than a decision to kill in order to save lives. In a very real sense, that soldier cannot privilege his desire to be free from the sin of killing another human being to supersede his responsibility to save the lives of innocents. As philosopher Michael Walzer argues, this is the perennial problem of "dirty hands." The honest soldier knows this problem all too well – as does the interrogator.
Nevertheless, Mohler goes on to rule out creating any rules that would actually legitimize even some forms of torture:
First, the use of torture should be prohibited as a matter of state policy – period. No set of qualifications and exceptions can do anything but diminish the moral credibility of this policy.
Then he goes on to give a little room:
At the same time, rare exceptions under extreme circumstances can be considered under those circumstances by legitimate state agents, knowing that a full accounting of these decisions must be made to the public, through appropriate means and mechanisms.
Second, a thorough and legitimate review must be conducted subsequent to the use of any such techniques, with the agents who authorized or conducted such use of torture fully accountable, even to the point of maximum legal prosecution if their use of extreme coercion is seen to have been unjustified (not simply because the interrogation did not produce the desired information, but because the grounds of justification were invalid).
I wish I could really follow this line of reasoning. Mohler has my sympathy because it is difficult to put it into words. All I can understand by reading between the lines is that we Christians are trying our best to cut some slack for those whose job it is to protect us. Yes, it is true enough that often we do things that are never right but may take the place of a greater sin and therefore unavoidable. In the current discussion on torture is this a factor? Was waterboarding practised at Guantanamo Bay only with extreme moral consciousness and a sense of deep humility?
Who are we kidding? When no law exists to hold the torturers accountable and no law exists to keep the public fully aware of these proceedings (as Mohler suggests we must do), how can we be silent over this moral outrage that has happened in our day and age? Perhaps our sin lies not so much in the fact that we are nuanced in our condemnation of such torture as a legal practice as in the fact we are silent here and now, when WE have broken the rules, we are guilty of indecency. Why is our desire to protect our soldiers' reputation and the image of a fair and just nation larger than our desire for righteousness and justice? Will this somehow make our enemies stronger and more spiteful of us? How disgusting of us to pretend that our image is more important than our morality!
If we can be so bold to criticize nations such as India for human rights abuses when fighting terror or failing to protect Hindu nationalists from murdering evangelical Christians on the pretext of coersive conversion or covert CIA operations, why can we not hold our own country accountable? We seem to have taken the idea of the "New Jerusalem" so literally and so much to heart!
Monday, May 18, 2009
No Purity of Purpose in Terrorism
[An edited version of this article was published first in Blogcritics.com]
The LTTE chief Prabhakaran's death in Sr Lanka made headlines yesterday and brought the 35-year old Sri Lankan civil war to an end. Several thousands of Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils have been killed in this war, a nation has been divided, wounded and extremist elements allowed to flourish. India has lost over 1000 of its soldiers in the peacekeeping force of the late Eighties as well as a former prime minister to the suicide bombing tactics employed by the LTTE.
A few years ago this prime minister's daughter, Priyanka Gandhi, visited one of the killers, Nalini who is now in an Indian jail. Despite the support that LTTE has enjoyed from some Tamil politicians, the news of Prabhakaran's death seems to have caused nary a ripple in Tamil Nadu, though security analyst B Raman warns us that it is too early to be complacent. It seems now that the wounds (at least in India) are being painfully and slowly healed. For how long, noone is sure.
A cursory look into the twists and turns in this civil war brings out the worst in people. You hear opinions such as 'Sinhalese are congenitally racist, 'Tamils are congentially racist', 'Christians created all the problems by evangelizing the Hindu Tamil community', 'the Hindu Tamils are to be blamed for their identification as Tamils and not Sri Lankans', 'the British are to be blamed for dividing the country', 'the Buddhists wanted to institutionalize their beliefs and culture', and so on. There are enough instances in this nation's history to illustrate these points.
Granted that many factors contributed to the civil war, what stands out most clearly is that the best of intentions cannot sustain a terrorist undertaking. The LTTE had decimated many other Tamil nationalistic and militant outfits, engaged in a reign of internal terror, used women and child warriors and suicide bombers, committed horrifying human rights abuses, targeted and abducted many civilians, engaged in piracy, arms and drugs smuggling and carved out a relationship with the grand daddy of them all, al Qaeda. A look into history may even justify the origin of a movement to represent Tamils equitably in the xenophobic and exclusionary Sinhalese-dominated Sri Lankan government. But a militia like this was only bound to degenerate. There is no purity of purpose in terrorism. And thus the oft-repeated maxim that'one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter' is wrong. The LTTE was organized like a military, but it committed abuses that are in contradiction of the principles of nation-to-nation armed conflicts. Much less do we need to say about the allegedly 'stateless' entities in South Asia that practice terror.
Today the process of healing between Sinhalese and Tamils in Sri Lanka is yet to begin in earnest. Hopefully the end of the war will mean an exploration into the beginning of hostility and an equitable solution in the democratic process.
The LTTE chief Prabhakaran's death in Sr Lanka made headlines yesterday and brought the 35-year old Sri Lankan civil war to an end. Several thousands of Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils have been killed in this war, a nation has been divided, wounded and extremist elements allowed to flourish. India has lost over 1000 of its soldiers in the peacekeeping force of the late Eighties as well as a former prime minister to the suicide bombing tactics employed by the LTTE.
A few years ago this prime minister's daughter, Priyanka Gandhi, visited one of the killers, Nalini who is now in an Indian jail. Despite the support that LTTE has enjoyed from some Tamil politicians, the news of Prabhakaran's death seems to have caused nary a ripple in Tamil Nadu, though security analyst B Raman warns us that it is too early to be complacent. It seems now that the wounds (at least in India) are being painfully and slowly healed. For how long, noone is sure.
A cursory look into the twists and turns in this civil war brings out the worst in people. You hear opinions such as 'Sinhalese are congenitally racist, 'Tamils are congentially racist', 'Christians created all the problems by evangelizing the Hindu Tamil community', 'the Hindu Tamils are to be blamed for their identification as Tamils and not Sri Lankans', 'the British are to be blamed for dividing the country', 'the Buddhists wanted to institutionalize their beliefs and culture', and so on. There are enough instances in this nation's history to illustrate these points.
Granted that many factors contributed to the civil war, what stands out most clearly is that the best of intentions cannot sustain a terrorist undertaking. The LTTE had decimated many other Tamil nationalistic and militant outfits, engaged in a reign of internal terror, used women and child warriors and suicide bombers, committed horrifying human rights abuses, targeted and abducted many civilians, engaged in piracy, arms and drugs smuggling and carved out a relationship with the grand daddy of them all, al Qaeda. A look into history may even justify the origin of a movement to represent Tamils equitably in the xenophobic and exclusionary Sinhalese-dominated Sri Lankan government. But a militia like this was only bound to degenerate. There is no purity of purpose in terrorism. And thus the oft-repeated maxim that'one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter' is wrong. The LTTE was organized like a military, but it committed abuses that are in contradiction of the principles of nation-to-nation armed conflicts. Much less do we need to say about the allegedly 'stateless' entities in South Asia that practice terror.
Today the process of healing between Sinhalese and Tamils in Sri Lanka is yet to begin in earnest. Hopefully the end of the war will mean an exploration into the beginning of hostility and an equitable solution in the democratic process.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Darkness Deepens, Lord; With Me Abide
Death of a loved one from cancer. Job insecurity. Health concerns. Financial worries. Deeper questions about goals and life's purpose. I saw these in others a couple of months ago, and I see myself facing every one of these today. Add to these the problems faced by many friends with regard to their marriage, relationships, addictions, et al. Requests for prayer are increasing by the day. Such situations come up frequently and when they do they result in at least some questioning. We cringe at least a bit when we hear the truth of Scripture expressed in familiar sentences such as "When God closes a door, he opens a window" or "God wants the best for us and it is all part of the plan." Some of us who have already been through and come out stronger from a crisis of faith may not question so strongly as others do, but none of us get quite used to the valleys of life. Such is our nature.
My own questions have to do with God and His ways. We know that life is uncertain. Who can tell if we may not die from cancer in the future? Who can tell if our careers will go the way we want them to go? Who has control over what our loved ones go through? Given that these uncertainties cloud of lives, I've often wondered if life may be worth living at all, if it were not for the purposes that God has ordained it for- viz, the announcement of His kingdom in the world and the hope of eternal communion with Him.
Here is my life of questions- qhich I may never know the answers for.
1. If we are to trust God when we are in pain, will we truly be shielded from much pain? For instance, if we trusted God when dealing with a job loss, will this lessen the pain when I still need to pay the bills and put food on the table for my family? Everyday I'm reminded that the cash is dwindling and prospects bleak. We have heard of situations in which God's people have been fed miraculously- Elijah, George Mueller, and often ourselves in less dramatic ways. We know that Jesus never failed to heal, feed or comfort those who approached Him during His earthly life. We also know that He continually pointed away from the miracles and towards Himself and the Father. If there is an inference we can draw from this, it is that He uses miracles only to point to Himself. Secondly, he uses pain as a way to demonstrate His healing and comfort. This is a double-edged sword. In order to feel the comfort we need to feel the pain. Indeed, Jesus himself prayed that the cup of suffering pass from Him- and it did not. If our trust was so strong that we did not feel the pain and our chest swelled with confidence in the Lord when our body went up in flames, is this then pain at all? What then is the purpose of pain?
2. God expressly forbids divining, astrology and fortune telling. We know that such practices are from the enemy. We know that such desire may be to control the future which is not ours to control. But who among us has not wished that we could know what is to come, especially in times of suffering? Even if we were to trust God that He will work things out we still need to sweat it out in the here and now, living each day with intermittently rising and falling hopes. Is there a way to clearly hear God's voice in such times? Many say there is, but I have not yet found a foolproof way to experience such clarity of His purpose. Let's face it- very often (and more often than not)- in times of suffering, God is silent. I have experienced clarity in the past, so I cannot deny that He responds, but his silence is his most common response. Wise ones urge us to wait during this time. But waiting does mean doing nothing. Our circumstances demand that we actually do something to keep ourselves going. For instance, when we lose a job, we need to keep ourselves working on something until God shows us a way out. Do we simply wait on Him and pray? Some have found success in this method. A friend of mine did precisely this, but his waiting period was a week's time. Those of us who go for months without success find this unnerving. Besides they will question- and I think they should- whether doing nothing else besides prayer is the right thing to do. How can we hear from God?
3. Will we get to know God's purposes through pain? Some say we will- in eternity. I do not find a verse in the Bible that supports this. It does say that God will comfort us in eternity- He will wipe away each tear from our eye. In heaven there will be no more weeping. The Bible urges us to simply trust.
I hope you will see that I do not ask the above questions in a spirit of rebellion. I question some of our easy answers to the deepest questions. In the book of Job, the wretched man found out that the answer God gave him was that Job knew very little. God humbles us so much that we are silenced before Him. We may not get an answer to our "why's". Some of us fall away from the faith (if that is possible at all) during trials. Others turn to God more and more. All I can say is that the "whom" is more important than the "why". Perhaps our real question is also "who can I trust" rather than "why is this happening." It doesn't seem so- but I think it may be our real question. If so, it is interesting to know that Jesus himself went through that question in the garden. The Scriptures say that angels comforted Him at that painful point in his earthly life. We may groan and trust His promises, but He still needs to wipe every tear away.
My own questions have to do with God and His ways. We know that life is uncertain. Who can tell if we may not die from cancer in the future? Who can tell if our careers will go the way we want them to go? Who has control over what our loved ones go through? Given that these uncertainties cloud of lives, I've often wondered if life may be worth living at all, if it were not for the purposes that God has ordained it for- viz, the announcement of His kingdom in the world and the hope of eternal communion with Him.
Here is my life of questions- qhich I may never know the answers for.
1. If we are to trust God when we are in pain, will we truly be shielded from much pain? For instance, if we trusted God when dealing with a job loss, will this lessen the pain when I still need to pay the bills and put food on the table for my family? Everyday I'm reminded that the cash is dwindling and prospects bleak. We have heard of situations in which God's people have been fed miraculously- Elijah, George Mueller, and often ourselves in less dramatic ways. We know that Jesus never failed to heal, feed or comfort those who approached Him during His earthly life. We also know that He continually pointed away from the miracles and towards Himself and the Father. If there is an inference we can draw from this, it is that He uses miracles only to point to Himself. Secondly, he uses pain as a way to demonstrate His healing and comfort. This is a double-edged sword. In order to feel the comfort we need to feel the pain. Indeed, Jesus himself prayed that the cup of suffering pass from Him- and it did not. If our trust was so strong that we did not feel the pain and our chest swelled with confidence in the Lord when our body went up in flames, is this then pain at all? What then is the purpose of pain?
2. God expressly forbids divining, astrology and fortune telling. We know that such practices are from the enemy. We know that such desire may be to control the future which is not ours to control. But who among us has not wished that we could know what is to come, especially in times of suffering? Even if we were to trust God that He will work things out we still need to sweat it out in the here and now, living each day with intermittently rising and falling hopes. Is there a way to clearly hear God's voice in such times? Many say there is, but I have not yet found a foolproof way to experience such clarity of His purpose. Let's face it- very often (and more often than not)- in times of suffering, God is silent. I have experienced clarity in the past, so I cannot deny that He responds, but his silence is his most common response. Wise ones urge us to wait during this time. But waiting does mean doing nothing. Our circumstances demand that we actually do something to keep ourselves going. For instance, when we lose a job, we need to keep ourselves working on something until God shows us a way out. Do we simply wait on Him and pray? Some have found success in this method. A friend of mine did precisely this, but his waiting period was a week's time. Those of us who go for months without success find this unnerving. Besides they will question- and I think they should- whether doing nothing else besides prayer is the right thing to do. How can we hear from God?
3. Will we get to know God's purposes through pain? Some say we will- in eternity. I do not find a verse in the Bible that supports this. It does say that God will comfort us in eternity- He will wipe away each tear from our eye. In heaven there will be no more weeping. The Bible urges us to simply trust.
I hope you will see that I do not ask the above questions in a spirit of rebellion. I question some of our easy answers to the deepest questions. In the book of Job, the wretched man found out that the answer God gave him was that Job knew very little. God humbles us so much that we are silenced before Him. We may not get an answer to our "why's". Some of us fall away from the faith (if that is possible at all) during trials. Others turn to God more and more. All I can say is that the "whom" is more important than the "why". Perhaps our real question is also "who can I trust" rather than "why is this happening." It doesn't seem so- but I think it may be our real question. If so, it is interesting to know that Jesus himself went through that question in the garden. The Scriptures say that angels comforted Him at that painful point in his earthly life. We may groan and trust His promises, but He still needs to wipe every tear away.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Song of Gomer
It's a six hour drive from Chicago, IL to St. Paul, MN. On the way there's wonderful scenery- the Laura Ingalls Wilder historical park, Wisconsin Dells, ski resorts, many campsites and wilderness parks. On this route twice a week I travel for work. My constant companion during twelve hours is the collection of weekly podcasts that musician Michael Card publishes. As I listen to these, the picture of Jesus in my chaotic workaday world becomes clearer. Truths we have always known and treasured become dearer and more convicting.
This week was no exception. What caught my attention was Card's 'Song of Gomer'. Gomer was the unfaithful and adulterous wife of the prophet Hosea. Each time Gomer would leave Hosea, looking for sweetness in stolen waters, Hosea would go back after her and bring her back. God uses Hosea's testimony as a picture of his relationship with the unfaithful Israel. Card's song says (on Gomer's behalf),
"Don’t know what He sees in me, he is spirit, he is free
And I, the wife of adultery, Gomer is my name.
Simply more than I can see, how he keeps on forgiving me
How he keeps his sanity; Hosea, you’re a fool.
A fool to love someone like me, a fool to suffer silently
But sometimes through your eyes I see I’d rather be a fool."
On another such podcast, Card talks about Peter's denial of Jesus after he was arrested. When the rooster crowed a third time, Jesus glanced at him; he went outside of the hall and wept bitterly. Why did Peter weep? Was it because Jesus glanced at him? Or was it because Jesus still loved him despite his unfaithfulness?
God's word tells us that it is His kindness that leads us to repentance. I had in the past understood this to solely mean that his holy spirit enables our spirits to respond to him; and that without his aid we are unable to reach out and touch his hand of salvation. I wonder if it means that his act of forgiveness alone produces repentance in us- at least the kind of repentance the Bible talks about when a person becomes a born-again Christian.
What breaks our heart? Is it our sin or the knowledge of forgiveness? Sin cretainly breaks God's heart. We hate our sin, but repentance means more than that hatred of sin. Repentance means to turn away from our sin, but turn away to what (or whom)?
What brings us to the Lord when we turn to Him for the first time? Is it conviction of sin or knowledge of His forgiveness? Can anyone truly repent without having a hint of the forgiveness?
The prodigal son in the parable could have "repented" and told himself that he simply deserved to eat the pig-food and admitted his sin, even resolving to lead a better life from then. Perhaps his resolve may even have succeeded in exemplary self-control and a total break from his past life. Instead chose to go back to his father against whom he had rebelled. Why? Could it be that he knew that at his father's house he would at least what his father's servants were getting? Isn't it telling that the Father ran to him when he saw him from far away?
If we did not know grace will we ever repent? Is repentance only the conviction that we deserve penalty for our sins? If repenteance involves turning away from sin, if we do not have forgiveness can we truly turn away? Another way to ask this question is: if Jesus had not taken the hard route to demonstrate His mercy towards us on the cross, would we have repented at all? John the Baptist had followers who were repenting of their sins in expectation of the Messiah. Similarly Old Testament repentances in the life of the nation of Israel were expectant of salvation in some way.
I would be happy to know your thoughts. At this point I only have questions. Just last week my friend and I had a phone conversation in which we agreed that it is good to speculate, stir the pot and conjecture about Biblical questions as long as we do not conclude on these matters against or without the Bible's own affirmation.
I'm even happy only to be raising these questions. As I wrote in a previous blog article, we can admire God for what we do not or cannot know of Him. He is a sweet mystery that intrigues us and captures our imaginations as well as our worship.
This week was no exception. What caught my attention was Card's 'Song of Gomer'. Gomer was the unfaithful and adulterous wife of the prophet Hosea. Each time Gomer would leave Hosea, looking for sweetness in stolen waters, Hosea would go back after her and bring her back. God uses Hosea's testimony as a picture of his relationship with the unfaithful Israel. Card's song says (on Gomer's behalf),
"Don’t know what He sees in me, he is spirit, he is free
And I, the wife of adultery, Gomer is my name.
Simply more than I can see, how he keeps on forgiving me
How he keeps his sanity; Hosea, you’re a fool.
A fool to love someone like me, a fool to suffer silently
But sometimes through your eyes I see I’d rather be a fool."
On another such podcast, Card talks about Peter's denial of Jesus after he was arrested. When the rooster crowed a third time, Jesus glanced at him; he went outside of the hall and wept bitterly. Why did Peter weep? Was it because Jesus glanced at him? Or was it because Jesus still loved him despite his unfaithfulness?
God's word tells us that it is His kindness that leads us to repentance. I had in the past understood this to solely mean that his holy spirit enables our spirits to respond to him; and that without his aid we are unable to reach out and touch his hand of salvation. I wonder if it means that his act of forgiveness alone produces repentance in us- at least the kind of repentance the Bible talks about when a person becomes a born-again Christian.
What breaks our heart? Is it our sin or the knowledge of forgiveness? Sin cretainly breaks God's heart. We hate our sin, but repentance means more than that hatred of sin. Repentance means to turn away from our sin, but turn away to what (or whom)?
What brings us to the Lord when we turn to Him for the first time? Is it conviction of sin or knowledge of His forgiveness? Can anyone truly repent without having a hint of the forgiveness?
The prodigal son in the parable could have "repented" and told himself that he simply deserved to eat the pig-food and admitted his sin, even resolving to lead a better life from then. Perhaps his resolve may even have succeeded in exemplary self-control and a total break from his past life. Instead chose to go back to his father against whom he had rebelled. Why? Could it be that he knew that at his father's house he would at least what his father's servants were getting? Isn't it telling that the Father ran to him when he saw him from far away?
If we did not know grace will we ever repent? Is repentance only the conviction that we deserve penalty for our sins? If repenteance involves turning away from sin, if we do not have forgiveness can we truly turn away? Another way to ask this question is: if Jesus had not taken the hard route to demonstrate His mercy towards us on the cross, would we have repented at all? John the Baptist had followers who were repenting of their sins in expectation of the Messiah. Similarly Old Testament repentances in the life of the nation of Israel were expectant of salvation in some way.
I would be happy to know your thoughts. At this point I only have questions. Just last week my friend and I had a phone conversation in which we agreed that it is good to speculate, stir the pot and conjecture about Biblical questions as long as we do not conclude on these matters against or without the Bible's own affirmation.
I'm even happy only to be raising these questions. As I wrote in a previous blog article, we can admire God for what we do not or cannot know of Him. He is a sweet mystery that intrigues us and captures our imaginations as well as our worship.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Dubious Witness in a Skeptical World
Unlike most of my friends in America, my evangelical, Bible-believing, pro-life, pro-family Christian friends in India are not fully politically conservative in the American sense. And I applaud their ability to be objective in their thinking, separating the politically expedient promises from real ones, considering their pro-life views to be inclusive of all people, including the aged, the imprisoned, and of course the unborn. But something that struck me as I talked to some of them was that they seemed, as many are apt to do, to exclude from true faith those Christian leaders who failed their ideal.
I've often felt that disowning fallen brethren is a sure way to set oneself up for future embarrassment. Ths is true for all kinds of fallen brethren: Christian leaders who fall prey to sexual immorality, politicians who fight unpopular wars, the ones who were involved in the Crusades in the Middle ages, everyone. Why do I feel this way?
I see the errors into which I have fallen myself and see that by the clear light of God's leading and word that they were milestones to understanding God. The moment we try to appear on the right side of popular opinion we can be sure that we are going off the track. A friend recently signed up into an online community on Facebook that celebrated the departure of President Bush in a gloating manner. While I can understand their desire to celebrate a victory they were hoping for, I'm unable to understand why a Christian would endorse such a childish and disrespectful initiative. Another friend told me, "these people (Mr. Bush and other Christians in his administration) cannot be Christian."
As I think about this, many reasons come to mind as to why we do this: embarrassment in identifying with an unpopular leader or a less-educated Christian, sin in the lives of these fallen idols, ill-informed opinions, a desire to exclude those who misunderstand Scripture and may other such factors.
Given that we could easily have been in their shoes due to ignorance, sin, poor judgment, incompetence or misunderstanding, I strongly believe that we have a responsibility to own up and hold in perspective many things:
1. An unconditional rejection of sin within and outside of ourselves.
2. An unconditional acceptance that Christians could go and have gone wrong even when they believe they are acting in accordance with God's will.
If we accept the above two conditions, we will need to answer a larger question that an unbelieving friend asked me recently. If religion can be so easily misconstrued then it can be easily manipulated. Could not this mean that:
1. The way we do things in any religion today may be not authentic at all?
2. If religion can be so easily misinterpreted is it a worthwhile course to understand religion at all?
Perhaps we are intimidated by such questions. But clearly these are not a believer's questions, nor an honest skeptic's questions at all. I have some common ground with a skeptic in a way- I embrace the Christian worldview because I'm fully convinced of it and because Jesus found me 13 years ago in my sin and demonstrated his forgiveness to me. It is not because I'm credulous that I'm a Christian.
The above two questions are naysayers' questions. These are people who are not actually looking for reason at all. They simply want to deny Christianity a place in their lives or often, others' lives. We should not be troubled by these questions.
Many say that faith is not found by reason. While I disagree that faith is unreasonable there is an element of truth to the statement that faith cannot be found by reason. Simply because logical, scientific, historical, archaeological and other evidences can be found for christianity (as indeed they have been to a reasonable extend), a person cannot embrace christianity.
A skeptic needs to have other questions answered which may not have anything to do with reason at all. for instance, "why did my child die" (as in Arun Shourie's case), or "why does God allow suffering" (a question which may have more personal implications for the questioner than she is willing to confide), or "why did I get fired from my job", or "why did my parents abandon me", or "how can God's word call me sinful when I seem to have no control over my feelings or actions."
Indeed I'm convinced that all of us ask these questions; and fight it as we may, the reason why we are not convinced of any faith-worldview is precisely because these questions are not answered in our minds. Perhaps the answer to these questions may convict us of sin which we are unwilling to admit.
The difference between an honest skeptic and a naysayer is profound. A healthy skepticism as to political leanings (Left or Right) of fellow-Christians and a propensity to stir the pot and encounter mysteries in Christian thinking have stood me in good stead. These mysteries only edify me and leave me to admire God for the immense wisdom that is His and past my finding out. To be humbled in this way is to experience a thrill that God is in control and delights in my asking these questions which I may never find the answers for, either side of eternity. But the naysaying habit destroys the soul and prevents us from coming to God.
These days a naysayer's favourite refuge lies in ad hominem attacks on Christian leaders, politicians and others who have been suddenly found to have contradicted their profesed beliefs. I think an honest skeptic would be careful enough to look beyond these. For this reason alone, I do not think we need to fear questions from naysayers when we adopt an honest approach to serious mistakes Christians have made.
And I think an honest Christian should be careful not to disown these people when they fall. After all naysayers are not just found among the unbelievers. A Christian naysayer can be the most disturbing of all, in that his faith and actions can come across as being insincere. An honest skeptic would call this bluff in a hurry.
I've often felt that disowning fallen brethren is a sure way to set oneself up for future embarrassment. Ths is true for all kinds of fallen brethren: Christian leaders who fall prey to sexual immorality, politicians who fight unpopular wars, the ones who were involved in the Crusades in the Middle ages, everyone. Why do I feel this way?
I see the errors into which I have fallen myself and see that by the clear light of God's leading and word that they were milestones to understanding God. The moment we try to appear on the right side of popular opinion we can be sure that we are going off the track. A friend recently signed up into an online community on Facebook that celebrated the departure of President Bush in a gloating manner. While I can understand their desire to celebrate a victory they were hoping for, I'm unable to understand why a Christian would endorse such a childish and disrespectful initiative. Another friend told me, "these people (Mr. Bush and other Christians in his administration) cannot be Christian."
As I think about this, many reasons come to mind as to why we do this: embarrassment in identifying with an unpopular leader or a less-educated Christian, sin in the lives of these fallen idols, ill-informed opinions, a desire to exclude those who misunderstand Scripture and may other such factors.
Given that we could easily have been in their shoes due to ignorance, sin, poor judgment, incompetence or misunderstanding, I strongly believe that we have a responsibility to own up and hold in perspective many things:
1. An unconditional rejection of sin within and outside of ourselves.
2. An unconditional acceptance that Christians could go and have gone wrong even when they believe they are acting in accordance with God's will.
If we accept the above two conditions, we will need to answer a larger question that an unbelieving friend asked me recently. If religion can be so easily misconstrued then it can be easily manipulated. Could not this mean that:
1. The way we do things in any religion today may be not authentic at all?
2. If religion can be so easily misinterpreted is it a worthwhile course to understand religion at all?
Perhaps we are intimidated by such questions. But clearly these are not a believer's questions, nor an honest skeptic's questions at all. I have some common ground with a skeptic in a way- I embrace the Christian worldview because I'm fully convinced of it and because Jesus found me 13 years ago in my sin and demonstrated his forgiveness to me. It is not because I'm credulous that I'm a Christian.
The above two questions are naysayers' questions. These are people who are not actually looking for reason at all. They simply want to deny Christianity a place in their lives or often, others' lives. We should not be troubled by these questions.
Many say that faith is not found by reason. While I disagree that faith is unreasonable there is an element of truth to the statement that faith cannot be found by reason. Simply because logical, scientific, historical, archaeological and other evidences can be found for christianity (as indeed they have been to a reasonable extend), a person cannot embrace christianity.
A skeptic needs to have other questions answered which may not have anything to do with reason at all. for instance, "why did my child die" (as in Arun Shourie's case), or "why does God allow suffering" (a question which may have more personal implications for the questioner than she is willing to confide), or "why did I get fired from my job", or "why did my parents abandon me", or "how can God's word call me sinful when I seem to have no control over my feelings or actions."
Indeed I'm convinced that all of us ask these questions; and fight it as we may, the reason why we are not convinced of any faith-worldview is precisely because these questions are not answered in our minds. Perhaps the answer to these questions may convict us of sin which we are unwilling to admit.
The difference between an honest skeptic and a naysayer is profound. A healthy skepticism as to political leanings (Left or Right) of fellow-Christians and a propensity to stir the pot and encounter mysteries in Christian thinking have stood me in good stead. These mysteries only edify me and leave me to admire God for the immense wisdom that is His and past my finding out. To be humbled in this way is to experience a thrill that God is in control and delights in my asking these questions which I may never find the answers for, either side of eternity. But the naysaying habit destroys the soul and prevents us from coming to God.
These days a naysayer's favourite refuge lies in ad hominem attacks on Christian leaders, politicians and others who have been suddenly found to have contradicted their profesed beliefs. I think an honest skeptic would be careful enough to look beyond these. For this reason alone, I do not think we need to fear questions from naysayers when we adopt an honest approach to serious mistakes Christians have made.
And I think an honest Christian should be careful not to disown these people when they fall. After all naysayers are not just found among the unbelievers. A Christian naysayer can be the most disturbing of all, in that his faith and actions can come across as being insincere. An honest skeptic would call this bluff in a hurry.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Satyam's Great Fall
Satyam CEO's revelations on inflated cash have rocked the bottom of the already deflated stock indices in India. Some say that India's outsourcing industry itself will now be viewed with suspicion. While I do not think it will happen (what with the American financial institutions in trouble due to reckless lending and the double whammy from Mr. Madoff's Ponzi scheme still smarting, I do not thinkg the offshore outsourcing industry will be singled out as a miscreant), I do think that such events are serious blows to our credibility as a world-beating player in IT services. They come at a diificult time and any merger or acquisition that will see Satyam become part of another company will undermine the true value that Satyam has commendably built into itself- in terms of its delivery processes and strength in Enterprise Application Services.
On online forums, Indians are reacting with customary hyperbole, "Raju is worse than Kasab (the captured Pakistani terrorist from the Mumbai siege):, says one. Another asks, "Who is the idiot who is running their Finance department?"
Raju released a letter to the board of Satym and the SEBI chairman yesterday. A paragraph in the letter caught my attention:
While ethical standards in companies like Wipro and Infosys are considered to be high by the general public (and their managements have been conservative and transparent to strengthen this impression), this is a scenario that could unfold in any organization. If there is a small differential in the cash flow as reflected by the books and appears in reality, will a CEO contradict his published, audited books and go public with this discrepancy? Will that not affect the impression of the company in the minds of its investors, customers, employees and other stakeholders. In Raju's case he just postponed the problem until it grew bigger and dominated the company itself. If he had gone public when this problem first started, will it have taken a beating? It may well have, and that is what a CEO needs to commit in his/her mind. Wipro's ethical guidelines state that "anything grey is black", meaning that whatever the price, the company will stay on the right side of the law and ethics. Will this be put to practice in a situation like Satyam's?
I'm firm in my view that the laws of the land must take their course in prosecuting Mr. Raju and any others involved. But the fact is, as Solzhenitsyn said, "the line between good and evil runs through the heart of every man."
On online forums, Indians are reacting with customary hyperbole, "Raju is worse than Kasab (the captured Pakistani terrorist from the Mumbai siege):, says one. Another asks, "Who is the idiot who is running their Finance department?"
Raju released a letter to the board of Satym and the SEBI chairman yesterday. A paragraph in the letter caught my attention:
The gap in the balance sheet has arisen purely on account of inflated profits over a period of last several years (limited only to Satyam standalone, books of subsidiaries reflecting true performance). What started as a marginal gap between actual operating profit and the one reflected in the books of accounts continued to grow over the years. It has attained unmanageable proportions as the size of the company operations grew significantly (annualized revenue run rate of Rs 11,276 crore in the September quarter, 2008 and official reserves of Rs 8.392 crore). The differential in the real profits and the one reflected in the books was further accentuated by the fact that the company had to carry additional resources and assets to justify higher level of operations – thereby significantly increasing the costs.
While ethical standards in companies like Wipro and Infosys are considered to be high by the general public (and their managements have been conservative and transparent to strengthen this impression), this is a scenario that could unfold in any organization. If there is a small differential in the cash flow as reflected by the books and appears in reality, will a CEO contradict his published, audited books and go public with this discrepancy? Will that not affect the impression of the company in the minds of its investors, customers, employees and other stakeholders. In Raju's case he just postponed the problem until it grew bigger and dominated the company itself. If he had gone public when this problem first started, will it have taken a beating? It may well have, and that is what a CEO needs to commit in his/her mind. Wipro's ethical guidelines state that "anything grey is black", meaning that whatever the price, the company will stay on the right side of the law and ethics. Will this be put to practice in a situation like Satyam's?
I'm firm in my view that the laws of the land must take their course in prosecuting Mr. Raju and any others involved. But the fact is, as Solzhenitsyn said, "the line between good and evil runs through the heart of every man."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
