At Genesis 16 is the account of how Hagar, Abraham’s maid-servant, ran away from home because Sarah (or Sarai, as she then was), his wife, had been mistreating her.  (To be frank, Hagar was asking for it.  Genesis 16 points out that she started to despise her mistress upon becoming pregnant with Abraham’s child, but that’s a separate issue, and it certainly doesn’t justify the ill-treatment.)

And so Hagar, heavily pregnant as she then was, ran into the dessert.  Midway, God caught up with the distressed mother-to-be.

"Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going ?"

"I am running away from my mistress Sarai," she answered.

"Go back to your mistress and submit to her."  The angel added, "I will also increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count … for the Lord has heard your misery …".

…

[ Hagar ] gave this name to the Lord who spoke to her : "You are the One who sees me".

- Genesis 16 : 7 - 13

We derive one of the names of God - El Roi or the God who Sees - from this account.  When I first read Genesis 16 for my devotionals a couple of days ago, I thought that if I had not named Jed "Jed", I would have named him "Roy" because of this account.  "Roy" ordinarily means "king" but to me it would be a reminder that we have a God who sees - how cool is that ?

But the story doesn’t end there.  In Genesis 20, we see that Hagar has returned to her home and given birth to a son, Ishmael.  Sarah has also given birth to a baby boy, Issac, and at a celebration of Issac’s birth,, Hagar again mocked her mistress (Hagar was obviously not a very nice person).  This naturally incurred the wrath of Sarah, who chased her away.

"Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Issac." (Genesis 21 : 10)

As they saying goes, "hell hath no fury as a woman scorned".  So Hagar finds herself wandering in the dessert once again.  Having run out of water, she puts Ishmael under one of the bushes to die, while she crawls away and sobs.

And as [ Hagar ] sat nearby, she began to cry.  God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What is the matter, Hagar ?  Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there.  Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation." (Genesis 21 : 16 - 18)

As I reflected on these two accounts of Hagar’s life in Genesis 16 and 20 this morning, it struck me that these passages are more than about the God who Sees, as we would ordinarily understand seeing.  Seeing can mean inaction.  In life we often encounter people who just like to see but do nothing to help - Singaporean drivers are notorious for holding up traffic on  expressways so that they can gawk at a roadside accidents; in the army we have "eyepower".

However, it struck me that these passages speak about the God who Watches Over and Cares for us. 

Like Hagar, we have imperfections.  This passage tells me that God looks beyond our imperfections to love us despite it.

Like Hagar, we may have experienced failure, or rejection or unfair treatment from bosses, family members, friends or even society, because of how we look or behave, or the circumstances that we are born into.  This passage reminds me that we have a God who loves us for who or despite of what we are, who looks out for us all the time, who shares our distress when we are victims of unfairness or injustice, and who acts to bring healing and redress in His perfect time.

Finally, like Hagar, our way of dealing with failure, rejection or unfairness is sometimes to bitterly fight back, and at other times run away to do something foolish (drink ! drugs ! sex ! suicide !), or simply crawl away and give up.  This passage assures me that God has a plan for our life and for that reason has permitted the present circumstances as a way of refining character, and so like Hagar we are to "go back and submit", face up to the challenge, rather than bitterly fighting back, or running or crawling away.

Perhaps I am not the right authority to write about this because I did not have to wait very long to get attached; God blessed me with a soulmate (Joyce) when I entered university. 

That notwithstanding, I observe that one of the matters that Christians often compromise on is romantic relationships.  As an unattached Christian gets older, Paul’s exhortation that believers should not be yoked with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 7 : 14 - 15) becomes very, very difficult to uphold.

I was reminded of this when I read Genesis 24 today. 

Issac was of the right age for marriage and his father, Abraham, wanted to find him a wife.  But Abraham would not settle on just any woman for a daughter-in-law.  God had told Abraham that his descendents would eventually settle in the land of Canaan.  Perhaps because of this, and perhaps because of their pagan practices were incompatible with Abraham’s monotheism, it was inappropriate for Abraham to find a daughter-in-law from amongst the Canaanites.  Abraham’s daughter-in-law therefore had to come from amongst his relatives back in his home town, Paddan Aram.

But that was not enough.  Abraham’s daughter-in-law had to be prepared to move to Canaan, the land which God promised to give to Abraham’s descendents.  Abraham was mindful of God’s command that he and his household were to leave his home town, and live wherever God had led them to (Genesis 12 : 1).  Issac was not to leave Canaan in disobedience to God !  If the prospective daughter-in-law was unwilling to move to Canaan, then it appears that Abraham would rather Issac remain unmarried, notwithstanding the fact that if Issac remained unmarried, Abraham would have no descendents to inherit the land God promised to them !

Abraham said to his Chief Servant, "Put your hand under my thigh.  I want you to swear by the Lord … that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I am living, but will go to my country and my own relatives and get a wife for my son Issac.

The servant asked him, "What if the woman is unwilling to come back with me to this land ?  Shall I then take your son back to the country you came from ?"

"Make sure that you do not take my son back there," Abraham said.  "The Lord … who brought me out of my father’s household and my native land and who spoke to me and promised me on oath, saying ‘to your offspring I will give this land’ - He will send His angel before you so that you can get a wife for my son from there.  If the woman is unwilling to come back with you, then you will be released from this oath of mine.  Only do not take my son back there."

- Genesis 24 : 2 - 8

God blessed Abraham again because of his faithfulness in this matter.  The Chief Servant was successful - the very first woman he met at Paddan Aram, Rebekah, was the granddaughter of Abraham’s relative.  And she was quite willing to leave her home to move in with Issac. 

Genesis 24 closes on a mushy, love-at-first-sight note, not unlike what you’d get from a Korean romantic drama :

Now Issac … was living in the Negev.  He went out of the field one evening to meditate, and as he looked up, he saw camels approaching.  Rebekah also looked up and saw Issac.  She got down from her camel and asked the servant, "Who is that man in the field coming to meet us ?"

"He is my master," the servant answered.  So she took her veil and covered herself.

Then the servant told Issac all he had done.  Issac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah.  So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Issac was comforted after his mother’s death.

- Genesis 24 : 62 - 67

I think this sounds terribly romantic !

If you’re interested, contact me at melvyn@musings.per.sg for the details.

It looked like it would rain for 40 days and 40 nights but it finally stopped on - was it Friday ? - and the sun came out.  So I swam and gymmed for the first time in almost a month during lunch yesterday.  Am quite pleased that I’ve put on a healthier shade of brown too.  Now I can indulge in some ice cream without bemoaning the potential weight gain.

These photos are of Jed after he turned two months old, last Tuesday.  He has started to draw a connection between his hand and his mouth (ie. suck thumb), though not very well, so his hand often ends up in his forehead, eye, nose, or chin.  Which I find quite amusing to watch.

It is my considered opnion that if there were a true separation of religion and state, we either wouldn’t be able to teach anything in our schools, or would have to teach everything - from evolution, to monotheistic, polytheistic and alien creationism.  This is because, as I’ve noted elsewhere, secularism (science and other disciplines taught with the deliberate intent of denying the existence of God) is just another belief system, not unlike religion.

"Secularism", or secular humanism, as it is known by some in the United States, is in some ways as good as a religion.  Harvard University in the US, for example, boasts of a Humanist Chaplain who heads its Secular Humanist Ministry.  (The First Humanist Manifesto, by the way, says at article 7 that "the distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained".  I wonder how that is consistent with their efforts to keep even a hint of religion out of American public schools ?)

Therefore, should non-religious people or freethinkers / atheists / agnostics be surprised that religious people take offense when science and other disciplines, taught as a belief system bereft of God, is forced upon them in a school curriculum ?  (See my previous posts on "Creationists vs Evolutionists" and "Proselytism in Schools a Cause for Concern".  Note also that I’m not saying that God should be deliberately injected into every discipline; I’m just saying that the existence of God should not be deliberately denied).

Interestingly, the Association of Christian Schools International (which as far as I can see, is not international, but American … uhm, that is so typically American ?) has recently filed a "viewpoint discrimination" lawsuit to challenge a University of California (UC) policy that bars students taught from a conservative Christian viewpoint from being admitted to schools in the UC system.  According to their attorney,

"The University of California, in reviewing courses, has objected to a ‘biased’ English text because it emphasizes Christian themes in great literature through the years … it has objected to a science text that teaches the standard course content, and then teaches creation. It has objected to a history text that emphasizes the role of Christianity in history. It has objected to a social studies text that emphasizes the Christian heritage of America."

The university’s reply is that that it does not practise "viewpoint discrimination".  Its spokeswoman said that

"This is not a viewpoint issue for us … teach whatever [ your Christian schools ] want. We don’t want to be in the position of dictating what is taught. But we do have a right to set standards for admission, and ours are not unreasonable requirements."

I think the lawsuit is rather timely.  I’m also inclined to think that the Association of Christian Schools International has valid grievances that the US legal system should rightfully redress.  (You can read up on the lawsuit from Crosswalk and the New York Times.)

In Singapore, denying a student entry into a public school because of his previous religious education would be equivalent to saying that a madrasah (Islamic primary school) student should not be admitted into a public secondary school.  It is unthinkable.

Wrote an article for this week’s Sunday bulletin :

Are We Growing in Christ ?

Baby Jed is now almost two months old.  However, he still can’t crawl or walk, or flip around or sit up for that matter.  He can’t clean or feed himself.  He still drinks only milk.  And he can’t talk.  So if he feels tired, hot, cold, dirty, scared, lonely, bored, hungry or otherwise upset, he can only cry, and hope that someone will pay attention to him, and somehow correctly guess what he wants and give it to him.

It will be pathetic if Jed were to remain a baby for life.  He would miss all the wonderful foods (ice cream !) that we get to eat.  He would be confined to his cot for most of his life.  He would never get to read a book, run a marathon, fall in love or have kids of his own.  He would always need others to help him get something done, because he wouldn’t be able to do it himself.

As I read Hebrews for my devotionals recently, I was reminded of the above timeless truth as it applies not only to our physical lives, but to our spiritual lives as well.

“… though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again.  You need milk, not solid food !  Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness.  But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish between good and evil.” (Hebrews 5 : 11 – 14)

Sadly, in my twenty plus years in church, I have seen many Christians who never seem to grow up.  These are Christians who are easily swayed by rumours, ministry fads or false teachings, because they have not learnt how to discern what is wise or unwise, true or untrue,  in the light of God’s word.  These are the Christians who remain trapped in the same bad habits, or who continue chasing after emotionally and spiritually unfulfilling relationships and objectives, because they are unwilling to surrender their wills to God.  These are the Christians who wallow in self-pity and hurt, and keep to themselves, because they do not realise that God’s healing and grace flows in and through our lives when we serve others.

These are the Christians whom the author addresses in Hebrews 5 – Christians who need to learn the elementary truths of God’s word over and over again; Christians who, until they have absorbed and applied God’s word to their lives, will continue to live the uninspiring life of a baby that drinks only milk, never experiencing the abundant life that God has planned for them.

I am not saying that if we understand God’s word better, our difficulties will go away.  Some challenges – a long-term illness, a tough job, or a difficult relationship with family or friends – may remain in 2006 and take a long time to resolve.  Add to that the possibility that new challenges will present themselves in the new year.  But if we better understand what God wants us to do, and apply it to our lives, we will be better equipped to handle challenges that come our way.

I have flat feet, and that makes it very painful for me to run long distances.  The condition also makes me more susceptible to knee and heel injuries.  Like some of the difficulties we have in life, flat feet (as far as I understand) is a condition that will stay with me for life.  But flat feet has not prevented me from running long distances.  By reading up about my condition on the Internet, I have learnt how to strengthen supporting leg muscles, use shoe inserts, and self-medicate, so as to minimise running injuries and accelerate recovery.  The pain has not gone away, but I can manage it better, so much so that I was able to complete my first marathon in 2004.  (I am thinking of running again this year - anyone care to join me ?)

As you look back at 2005 and the years before that in this early part of the new year, do you notice yourself growing spiritually ?  Or are you still swayed by rumours, trapped in bad habits, chasing after unfulfilling relationships and objectives, or caught in past hurts ?  

Whether or not you grew spiritually in 2005, I encourage you to grow more in 2006.  Read the Bible regularly in 2006, read other Christian literature, listen more attentively to sermons, join in a Bible study and, as the Holy Spirit leads, apply God’s word to your life.  As encouraged by the author of Hebrews, “… let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity” (Hebrews 6 : 1).

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is now in a coma because of a stroke.  And if CNN reports are to be believed, TV evangelist Pat Robertson preached that "[ Sharon ] was dividing God’s land, and I would say, ‘Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the [ European Union ], the United Nations or the United States of America’".

Rather appallingly, in response to criticism at his remarks, his spokeswoman remarked that "what they’re basically saying is, ‘How dare Pat Robertson quote the Bible?’ … This is what the word of God says … This is nothing new to the Christian community".

Quite strangely, I don’t seem to recall reading in the Bible "woe to any person [ who divides the land of God ]".  Sigh.