Some Thoughts - Nicholas Khaw

So it has come to pass that time ticked past these three weeks. Another three weeks of my life consumed by the relentless march of time. But that shall not be the attitude. It was three weeks well spent.

This past week was namely missions. What is missions, why missions, how to do missions, who to do missions so on and so forth. I felt that the topic was well covered by the various speakers in that it was very hard hitting on the individual participants, challenging them on action (with the right rationale of course) instead of merely talk and head knowledge.

The underlying point was that missions were part of God’s mission that all believers have a responsibility to participate in. Well is like taken as a given by me and perhaps many second generation Christians. If someone were to tell me that I would go like “uh, and then?” Understanding something to be true is not enough if we do not act on it, I guess. I keep harping on this point because it is the main struggle I face. This can actually be traced back to the whole Christians not being Christians (possibly due to the lack of persecution). When Timothy and HealthServe said that he did not like the term Christians and instead preferred to call himself a follower of Christ I do empathise (I have wrote about the baggage that comes with the term Christians before). Except that perhaps I am not acting like a follower of Christ yet.

Ok, enough of that. Another poignant point was raised in response to one of the questions; when churches fail to do what they are supposed to do, there comes a rise of para-church organisations. It is sad that churches fail even though it is a given that they are not perfect. That was my initial thought. Upon further reflection, I thought that it was perhaps God’s provision that these organisations were springing up to plug in the gaps left by the church. Even though it is not the church’s work, it is at least the work of members of the church. After all, in response to my question on global government, the invited politician-speaker answered that it was not feasible for such a large government to be effective (loosely paraphrased). Obviously a church faces such practical limitations as well, in administration and all that load of economic theory. But a church is different from a global government, while those in a collective government would share the identity of humanity, the church is united in Christ called by God. We have an infallible divine leadership that will someday lead us directly in heaven! I guess the conclusion here is to keep striving and praying despite the imperfections with the hope of a better age (what what).

The talk by Prof. Roland Chia was decent, good for practical Christian living in the public sphere though it should not be taken as the gospel truth. I think he gives very sound suggestions and reasons. For example, I think a place where we should all work on is to purge individualist thinking and the secular humanist viewpoint from our own thinking and then perhaps we will be able to live more like what we profess. I found Bishop Emeritus Robert Solomon’s usage of the 10 commandments refreshing. It helps in some sense to show this ancient document’s relevance to today. Several points that stood out: Do not think of yourself as a leader of men, rather a follower of God. God can speak more to others than to us. All the points about idolatry.

So to conclude the whole program, I am affirmed that I should sort out my theology and then everything else will fall into place naturally. Stemming forth from the vine.

I find it really hard to just reflect on one item. I usually do it as a whole life experience. If any of my reflections thus far have been confusing and you would like to know more I guess you could drop me a text or something.

Nicholas Khaw

Holistic Faith - Nicholas Khaw

Another takeaway was that this faith cannot be just limited to the theory only nor practical only nor deeds only nor belief nor feelings nor anything in particular. It is whole. And more than the sum of its parts.

While my pre-conditioned and biased mind tends to look at things from a largely rational standpoint, (OK, I am not fully rational but I tend to value it more) other parts are important too. This really is a reminder that I cannot think Christianity. It is not a subject to understand alone. To claim one understands this faith through the mind alone is to miss out on a huge chunk of this faith. It is more than just logically sound, it is also emotionally, spiritually, morally, sociologically, psychologically sound. To reduce God into an argument is to not know God actually, perhaps it is something I ought to safeguard against. To limit God into just feeling would be to have mindless masses like those after pop culture or whatnot (did I just insult pop culture? Perhaps.) To limit God to a genie… … So on and so forth.

Rev. Tan Tiong Ann mentioned that John Calvin was able to synthesise the bible, the living word of God, into functional theology. He claimed that was one of the most important things Calvin did. I agree. Knowing without doing anything is something us second-generation Christians tend towards. So into the culture that one does not understand it from the outside. An example from week 1: I never knew that Chinese in Singapore these days still hold onto Christianity as a white man’s religion. And that was true even to friends that I have spoken to about Christianity and I never even knew about this underlying assumption.

Some of us generalize the Bible into an instruction manual, something Rev. Tan repeatedly cautions against. Like what is right what is wrong. Like lawyers. We take God’s word to be a law, like the Pharisees. We try to define terms, set limits, boundaries, discuss the extent that things crosses into wrong. All these are well and good in the interests of better understanding God’s word but God’s word is more than law. Rev. Tan (I think) also said that God’s word is relevant today. It is alive! I think one should look past technicalities and focus on the intent and bigger picture of God.

A Christian life is unique and different in all forms. From the state of perpetual worship to the whole being.

Lastly, I would also interject that the point of us telling the world about God and not to convert the world to be Christians. Basically we are telling them a truth! And the truth prompts us to do such and such. It cannot be the other way around of showing them the way of life or the benefits or the whatnot then leading them to the truth. We are not trying to get a bigger lobby group, trying to save souls .etc ALONE. There is no end in that. All has to stem from a living God that has revealed himself to us. I would do well to put it in perspective.

Looking inwards this week I see again lots of flaws in myself, again, especially in such an environment where everyone has done so much. I wouldn’t take it as comparison for the sake of comparison but more as comparison to see what can be learned and improved. Still, we are all works in progress.

I know these two posts are in really broad, modern-art esque strokes and apologise for that. Time constraints. (A really bad reason, I know.)

Nicholas Khaw

Arguments - Nicholas Khaw

So, second week of STEP passed by rather quickly. I am quite amazed that it is almost the end. It feels like it just started. It really should be longer. There is still much to learn.

Hmm, I shall not do a chronological summary. So, disparate points on certain issues will be the format of this reflection.

Lets start with the Ravi Zacharias International Ministries' talk. Before entering the talk I had heard several people fanboy/fangirl over him. So I was like, hmm, it better be good. But I didn’t have high expectations. Generally when people talk about science and religion I have a sense of futileness that overwhelms all. This stems from past experiences. 

20 minutes into the talk I was like, ugh, probably going to be the same old thing again. By same old thing I mean a person within this Christian paradigm telling us things that we already know. Like how it is between two entrenched ways of thinking, believers and non-believers. Believers will readily accept whatever is being said, for e.g that chance is way too small, way too impossible, that all the constants are acutely fine-tuned points to a God or creator and the non-believers will just champion their luck and chance and time. And it just develops into a stalemate that is just plain annoying for all parties involved because nobody is listening to anybody.

This problem will be compounded when the whole audience is just believers. And the believers will play devil’s advocate and at the whole end of the answer and discussion everyone will still be at the same idea and arguing for the same thing.

So, I guess I was quite impressed when he didn’t get tangled into the nitty gritty and pulling out specific examples and going into the whole chance argument. I think it can be quite succinctly summarized in the line that ‘God encompasses science, not the other way about hence science can only support the idea of God but not prove God’. And the constant zooming out of scope such that it essentially presents a philosophical argument. Which holds and makes sense. (Why would I want to study philosophy anyway?) It avoids the dogmatic and inane argument of one side claiming God cannot be disproved and the other side claiming that God can never be proved and each egging the other on to do such (disprove or prove). When the answer on both sides is assertively no. A no on the opposing side does not equate to a yes on your side. Just because God cannot be disproven by your current framework does not mean God necessarily exists. Similarly, the fact that God cannot be proven does not mean he does not exist. But yes, I am rambling. 

This approach is opposed to the Creation Ministries International (CMI), which I have been quite avidly following for the past few years, but I guess both have their place but the philosophical argument avoids many of the pitfalls a purely simplistic scientific argument would have. In fact, I think the scientific work done by CMI is wonderful but should be used in the right context, that is the larger philosophical context as supporting evidence and not stand-alone proof that it is inherently not. We (including I, or perhaps, especially I) could do well to remember that God’s ways are higher than our ways.

This ties in very well with another point that goes to state that we should assert and not force. I think it treads a very fine line, like what the speaker says, that our faith is not a mere belief. I think that I would do well to not swing the other way and get tired of arguing with people and just claim that I believe this, you believe that then alright, thank you very much, good luck with that (in a dismissive tone and change the topic to the weather or something). We should ensure it does not become an excuse for our laziness in spreading the good news yet we should not be overbearing and all. I think we should assert like how God asserted through the bible. Like in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Just a statement of fact. It is really a holistic thing this good news we believe in. So whole that I definitely cannot put into words within a weekend (or ever).

Nicholas Khaw

Reflection 2 on STEP - Nicholas Khaw

Now, to briefly go through several interesting points mentioned in the past week. (I am somewhat critiquing it, somewhat.)

Calling is something that you feel, loosely paraphrased, uneasy until you do it; something that you have to do or are compelled to do. That statement, I believe, has struck a chord amongst many of us. A calling is something almost mythical that people of my age search for; something akin to ‘adulthood’ or ‘identity’ if you would accept this lousy comparison. This definition is pragmatic and easy to use, very helpful (personally). I think it encompasses personal conviction, the work of the Holy Spirit and gut feel all into one. In tandem with other external confirmation it should be pretty watertight.

Personally I have been searching for this direction in my life, especially in the choice of university course. Several causes have captured some of my attention but none to the compelling stage yet. I will keep looking (and feeling).

Creation ex chaos is a fascinating concept. Actually, I can scarcely believe this is the first time I heard of it. I like to think of myself as having done some research on this whole creation thing and even though I have thought about the first two verses of the bible and posited the ‘was water created first?’ question, I never thought about it as beyond time and matter. To put it another way, I always thought it was just God creating the heavens and the earth first then straight to day 1 of creation. It encompasses entirely creation of matter and the starting of time (singularity?) no concept of ordering chaos. Surprisingly now that it is mentioned, I do recall many instances of this whole chaos vs order thing though not referring to creation. It is more of an ongoing conflict, something like good versus evil, yin and yang. 

I will further investigate this topic. No conclusion here. 

Another thing that struck me was that there exists lots and lots of knowledge even in this relatively specific realm of Christianity which is a subset of all knowledge. One then is compelled to feel that amassing all knowledge is such a futile task for our pathetic short lifespans. I guess that would lead to awe and wonder at the being of God which would be the creator of all knowledge and more too. Also makes me feel that an university education would add so little in the grand scheme of things to be accrued such an important place by society. If we are not even able to study finish this world, not even able to understand fully God’s word which is revealed to us, what more God?

I also unearthed a perhaps false fear within myself that I term the fear of future pride. This is in part to the excellent devotions thus far. It sounds really ridiculous but the gist of it is that I am afraid of becoming too proud (Given that I presently am proud. Acceptably proud perhaps?

Not-dangerously-proud would be more accurate.) Instead of feelings of inferiority that hamper service for God and the converse pride with service, there is this possible weird mix of the two that is definitely unhealthy. I shall look into it.

Lastly and quite importantly, I like the constant emphasis on the concurrent theme of being and rationale. I have recently written quite a lot on being as in existing as an entity to itself and its links to the big why. I feel that it was very wisely set up during the first day of devotions to show the big picture on how we should view God and ourselves and all that. I hope I can act according to all these!

Nicholas Khaw

Reflection 1 on STEP - Nicholas Khaw

First off, I disagree with your notion on a supporting picture and being the rebellious chap that I am, I have decided to forgo it without consent. I prefer to express myself in prose. 

So, as is customary in reflections, perhaps I shall start with expectations. I came into STEP hoping to grow in my walk with God; with emphasis on theological study that I hoped would be of a higher level than what is usually offered at the local church. Secondarily, it was to meet other like-minded people that I could call my peers.

I must say that I expected more in terms of the study in academic terms. That can be, perhaps, attributed to it being the first week though so I shall refrain from judging. We shall see how it goes. I felt the many talks we had these week had too much overlap. I feel paiseh for the speaker trying to impart a perceived exciting fact (E.g Keasberry) about something that had already been mentioned twice in the preceding days. Perhaps something could be done about limiting the scope to prevent overlap?

That being said, spending more time in a Christian environment is always positive, everything else being equal (ceteris paribus?). It is comforting and reassuring to know that there are other people striving for the same cause and with perhaps more zeal and passion than I. Others having made the tough changes that I still struggle with and doing what I have known to be right (yet not done). The forerunners and trailblazers make the path much brighter and less scary and lonely. This is especially so when the ground covered by them (University) is the ground I am most likely going to enter in the future. I think this environment where I can learn from, and hopefully contribute to is beneficial for all our lives.

I would also add that I think the hours are rather short for a full day program. I mean, starting at 1000 and ending at 1630 clocks in at a mere 5.5 hours of program a day. 

Most of the speakers that we have had thus far are decent, though. The variety of speakers is appreciated though perhaps, time constraints limit their full effectiveness. 

I am very pleased with certain topics or viewpoints brought up by speakers that align with my current frame of mind giving me a sense of validation. However, I am also refreshed to have met with several opposing ideas that have allowed me to rethink and reshape my mind. (Note here there is a distinction between these ideas, topics and viewpoints that I am looking for and the ‘facts’ or ‘stories’ that I find terribly mundane and repeated in the third paragraph.)

Looking to the future, I think that this week bodes well for the rest of the program. I am cautiously excited for it.

Nicholas Khaw