In today’s (22 December 2005) TODAY was a book review of The Chronicles of Narnia Boxed Set by Vinita Ramani.  At one point in the review, the reviewer says :

The second issue concerns Lewis’ Christian symbolism.  In a world relegated to a perpetual winter without Christmas, Aslan is like a "resurrected" Christ figure, revealing to the Pevensie siblings that they are the "true sons and daughters" of Adam and Eve.

The weighty religious allusions can ruin the experience of reading Lewis, just as much as it is narrow-minded to read dubious dark pagan ritual or "witchcraft" into the Harry Potter series.

I find the above critique duplicitous.

On the one hand, the reviewer says that it is narrow-minded to read too much into Harry Potter and to see in it "dark pagan ritual or witchcraft". 

On the other hand, the reviewer observes that there are "weighty religious allusions" present in the book(s) that he opines "can ruin the [reading] experience", and leaves it at that.  The reviewer doesn’t quite say that it is narrow-minded to read the book(s) in this manner.

In my opinion, the Chronicles of Narnia, like Harry Potter series, may simply be enjoyed as a fantasy without reading more into it.  Is it not, then, equally narrow-minded of one to read "weighty religious allusions" into the book(s), which may simply be enjoyed as a fantasy if one chooses to ?  Should not the reviewer have written, instead, that :

Just as it is narrow-minded to read dubious dark pagan ritual or "witchcraft" into the Harry Potter series, it is narrow-minded to ruin the experience of reading Lewis by reading weighty religious allusions into the Chronicles of Narnia ?

Jed had his first haircut yesterday.  Here are his pre (left) and post (right) haircut pictures.

When your calling is from God, and you are rejected by men, it is not you whom they have rejected, but God, as king.

So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah.  They said to him, "You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have. 

But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord.  And the Lord told him, "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected Me as their king."

- 1 Samuel 8 : 4 - 7

The latest reports on NKF mismanagement have provoked a lot of outrage (and understandably so).  Everyone’s talking about it.  But nothing can compare to being harangued into a corner by the office auntie and lectured about it for five whole minutes (or what seemed to me to be an eternity).

"Wah, backdated promotion 6 months, where got other people like that ?  Then got increment so high, free first class airfare …"

As I nodded sympathetically and physically backed away from her (until I finally found myself stuck in an office corner), I felt like telling her : "I’m sorry, but do I look like the Government or NKF to you ?"

Husbands, boyfriends and domestic helpers - beware !  Now we know where Singapore women first get to practise their sadistic streak …

From the Associated Press (December 19) :

Barbie, beware.

The iconic plastic doll suffers mutilation and "torture" at the hands of some young girls, according to research published Monday by British academics.

"The girls we spoke to see Barbie torture as a legitimate play activity, and see the torture as a ‘cool’ activity in contrast to other forms of play with the doll," said Agnes Nairn, one of the University of Bath researchers.

"The types of mutilation are varied and creative, and range from removing the hair to decapitation, burning, breaking and even microwaving."

Researchers from the university’s marketing and psychology departments questioned 100 primary school children about their attitudes to a range of products as part of a study on branding. They found the Barbie provoked the strongest reaction, with youngsters reporting "rejection, hatred and violence," Nairn said.

"The meaning of ‘Barbie’ went beyond an expressed antipathy; actual physical violence and torture towards the doll was repeatedly reported, quite gleefully, across age, school and gender."

While boys often expressed nostalgia and affection toward Action Man, the British equivalent of GI Joe, renouncing Barbie appeared to be a rite of passage for many girls.

…

By Jill Lawless | Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press

… a pox on your house.

A forumer at Thumbtack posed the question of whether God needs to be forgiven ever.  My reply, which I think is nothing new from what I’ve said elsewhere before, was as follows :

At the root of the question "does God need to be forgiven ever" are I think two deeper issues.

The first is "does God ever make mistakes with my life ?".

The second is "is it appropriate for me to get upset with God for things that seemingly go wrong in my life ?".

The "correct" answer to the first question is obvious to most Christians. As others here have pointed out, God is all righteous, He is not the source of evil, though He allows evil / unfair things to happen for reasons better known to Himself, blah blah blah quote a couple of Bible verses like Romans 8 : 28.

But this is hardly comforting for most people who struggle with pain and grief. Superhuman "the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised" (Job 1:21) type stoicism in the face of trial is not in everyone’s mettle.

So personally I prefer to deal with the second question first. Personally I believe it is not inappropriate for Christians to get upset with God, as part of the grieving process. I believe in a God who loves us so deeply that He wants to hear how we truly feel, and is prepared to hear us vent our frustrations against Him even if we are way off the mark in accusing Him of wrongdoing, without turning us into a pillar of salt or striking us dead.

One of my favourite passages in the Bible is Jeremiah 20, where the wailing prophet complains to God, that "Lord you have deceived me and I was deceived. You overpowered me and prevailed. I am ridiculed all day long, everyone mocks me … [Your] word has brought me insult and reproach all day long" (v 7 - 8).

As importantly, following his emotional outburst, Jeremiah composes himself and in faith declares that "His word is in my heart like a fire … I am weary of holding it in, I cannot" (v 9) and "to you I have committed my cause" (v 12).

It will be ideal if everyone had the stoic faith of Job. But I think that God does not honour the candid faith of Jeremiah any less. An outpouring of anger and grief directed at God is sometimes just what we need before we can pick up the pieces, and move on in our walk with God. God understands that we are human, and so He also honours less-than-perfect efforts to remain faithful in the face of trial.

Is it my carnal imagination, or does Ricky Martin’s latest song, It’s Alright, just scream "let’s have uninhibited, unsafe sex if we feel like it regardless of the consequences" ?  (Well, he might possibly be singing about engaging in unrestrained gambling at the casino regardless of the consequences, but I doubt it).

It’s alright, don’t be afraid don’t hesitate now
Feels right, let’s take it now don’t wait for later
Tonight, and if it feels right just let it go
And if it’s alright you got to let it flow
If I’m wrong don’t want to know
If I’m right just let it show
It’s crazy, so crazy it just might be
I only care about today, tomorrow is too far away
Let’s take it, and run run away with me …

At least if It’s Alright sounded good, we’d have a reasonable excuse to play it over the radio.  But since it lacks artistic merit / sounds awful, and promotes reckless / irresponsible behaviour, I think it should be banned.  Hope this song never becomes one of the anthems played to promote a safe sex campaign. (Oops, I mean "safer" sex; there’s no such thing as "safe" sex).

I heard a very honest prayer recently.  A Christian, frustrated with the very difficult children that he had been ministering to, used "spoilt brats" and other words (English, Chinese and Hokkien) that came close to expletives as he reluctantly prayed for them and for a heart to love them.

How shocking !  How politically incorrect !  How can a Christian say nasty things like that ?

His prayer reminded me of David’s prayer in Psalms 69, where David cursed his enemies.  I can’t imagine a prayer that is more politically incorrect.

"May the table set before them become a snare; may it become a retribution and a trap.  May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.  Pour out your wrath on them; let your fierce anger overtake them.  May their place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in their tents … charge them with crime upon crime; do not let them share in your salvation.  May they be blotted of of the book of life, and not be listed with the righteous." (v 22 - 28).

David’s prayer may send many in a church today into fits.  But I believe God honoured David for being honest about how he felt, which is why Psalms 69 made it into the Bible. 

What God honours, I believe, is not political correctness.  The world has enough churches which say that they love the unlovables in society, but welcome only those who are like themselves. 

What God honours, I believe, is the honesty to confess how lousy we feel, or how much we don’t feel like loving the unlovable, leaving these negative emotions at the altar, and walking out of church to love the people we just said we couldn’t love.

The Christian who prayed about the "spoilt brats" went on to love them in even greater measure the following day.