I think I’m being worked harder than what I’m being paid.  For the past couple of days, I’ve been poring over a 500 plus page document that the client says he needs an opinion on "urgently".  Despite the fact that parts of the document were completed some time ago, the freaking idiots didn’t have the courtesy to send the parts that were completed earlier over first.  No, in another delightful display of consideration (and intelligence, since rushed work can only mean work of a "higher" standard), they sent the document over as a whole on one day. 

And asked for a reply by the next.

Jed has finally discovered how to do a flip.  Only part of the way though - he can’t flip onto his tummy yet - and even then, it seems only on one side.

A friend once related to me his experience at a worship service in a Brethren church. He had to be in church for the commissioning service for the boys from the Boys Brigade.

Now, one of the distinctives of a Brethren service is its unstructured and open format. This means that anyone in the congregation can step up (to a microphone) during the service to share a passage from the Bible or lead the congregation in a hymn. If no one stands up, the service remains silent. It is in fact possible for an entire service to start and end in silence if no one steps out to share a word or lead a song, because the most dogmatic of the Brethren churches do not appoint anyone to lead worship, and sing without musical accompaniment.

My friend was appalled at the service he attended, to say the least. The service was truly boring, both for himself and the other boys in the brigade, and he found himself asking how the church could possibly hope to get the boys to attend its service regularly, if its services were going to be conducted that way.

I grew up in a Brethren church as a teenager.  Needless to say, most of my peers chose not to be present at the regular Sunday, open format worship service.  However there came a time, as I understand is the case with most churches in Singapore, when the church members started to understand and appreciate the person and role of the Holy Spirit in personal and corporate Christian life.  Slowly, an alternative worship service began to evolve with worship led by appointed leaders, musical accompaniment, and reduced emphasis on the open, unstructured time for members to step out and share a Bible verse or lead a hymn. Sadly (and needlessly on hindsight), this eventually led to to a sharp disagreement between the charismatics and the, er, for lack of a better term, anti-charistmatics / conservatives / dogmatists (and I am tempted to add, anal retentives), and a church split.

Reflecting on my experience growing up in a Brethren church and my friend’s experience at the Brethren service, it struck me that actually the Brethrens - and I can imagine to my amusement some of my Brethren elders who have since passed on flipping in their graves - were probably more charismatic than charismatics. At 1 Corinthians 14 : 26, the apostle Paul wrote that

When you [ the Christians ] come together [ as a small group or church ], everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All these must be done for the strengthening of the church.

Now, what Paul is describing sounds an awful lot like a Brethren style worship service, because I certainly haven’t seen a non-Brethren worship service where everyone is given an opportunity to lead a hymn, or share a word of instruction or wisdom from the Bible.  And very interestingly, Paul wrote the above verse in the context of how spiritual gifts given by the Holy Spirit, particularly the more "supernatural" gifts of speaking in tongues and prophecy, were to be employed for the edification of believers in church.

So what is the point I’m trying to make ?  I think I’m trying to say, in a very convoluted way, that the best church service is not the one with the loudest or most proficient band, the most talented worship leader, or the most "hyper" congregation that is dancing in the aisles.  Rather, the best church service (or gathering of Christians) is one where everyone, to the extent that time permits, as led by the Holy Spirit, has the opportunity edify his or her fellow believers by sharing a song, a word of instruction, a revelation, or tongue or interpretation.  And because I believe that because what God has recorded in 1 Corinthians 14 : 26 is true, anyone who earnestly seeks God would have something that is worth sharing with everyone else. There is no reason for silence.

Thank you for sharing what you did yesterday. I think it takes a lot of courage and humility to share as you did, and I believe that God will honour that. As promised, I will pray with you.  And to the extent that I am able to, I hope to be an encouragement to you.  Please pardon me for the times when I had by my actions stumbled, and when I will by my future conduct stumble, your faith.

What sets Christians apart from non-Christians is not our moral perfection.  Both are imperfect.  Maybe Christians even more so - which is why we are (thank God) more aware of our need for God. So long as we are on this earth, we will struggle with sin. Even the apostle Paul was like us ! (Read Romans 7 : 14 - 25)

Thankfully, God promises salvation through faith in Christ, without any precondition of perfection (Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9).  Not only that, God promises to watch over us, so that even when we fail, He will hold us in His hand, and keep us from being condemned (Psalms 37 : 23 - 24).  In other words, He who began a good work in your life will ensure that it is complete on the day when Jesus returns (Philippians 1 : 6).  Though we may be faithless, He will remain faithful (2 Timothy 2 : 13).  He will not abandon midway the work of salvation that He has started in our lives.

Something uncanny happened this morning.  During my devotionals this morning and the evening before, I was thinking about a friend whom I noticed recently looked out of sorts.  Or perhaps more likely, seeing how dense I am generally when it comes to reading body language, I was prompted by the Holy Spirit to think of that friend.  But I did not give much thought to doing anything about it (yes me, the lousy Christian).  And since I wasn’t going to do anything about it, I guess God decided that He had to act, and (He prompted) that friend gave me a call.  He shared how he was seeking to put more order in his spiritual life and asked me to keep him in prayer.  I must say this is quite amazing.  I told him that the Holy Spirit had kind of confirmed the same to me as an encouragement to him.

One of the difficult passages in Bible is Exodus 4 - 14, where God delivers the Israelites out of Egypt.  This is because, repeatedly in these chapters, God says that He would harden pharoah’s heart, so that pharoah would not let the Israelites go (Exodus 4 : 21).

Now, if God had influenced pharoah to be stubborn, was it fair that pharoah and the Egyptians whom he ruled should be punished ?  Was God unjust ?  How are the plagues in Egypt consistent with a God who also professes to be gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love (Exodus 24 : 6) ?

While I don’t presume to have the perfect answer to these questions, here are my thoughts as I did my devotions on Exodus :

1.  Pharoah was repeatedly given an opportunity to repent.  No less than 13 times, to be exact.  This is grace.  The first being the time when Moses first went to see him (Exodus 5), and the second when Moses performed the miracle of turning his staff into a snake (Exodus 6).  This was followed by the ten plagues, the most severe of which was the Plague of the Firstborn (Exodus 11).  Finally, when pharoah decided to pursue the Israelites after they had left Egypt, God had caused the pillar of cloud that went ahead of the Israelites to move between the Israelites and the Egyptian army (Exodus 14).  Because pharoah did not repent even upon witnessing this final miracle, the Egyptian army rushed into the Red Sea and perished.

2.  God had refrained from taking Egyptian life until the final plague (ie. Firstborn).  This means that from the first to the ninth plague, no one died (unless he foolishly ignored warnings concerning his safety, as some did during the Plague of Hail in Exodus 9 : 19 - 21).  In fact, in His grace and fairness, God had warned the Egyptians of what to expect from each plague, so that they could prepare themselves for it.

3.  The miracles that were witnessed by those who were not Israelites - Egyptians or otherwise - persuaded many of them to join the Israelites in their journey out of Egypt.  Exodus 12 : 38 records that "many other people went up" with the Israelites, even though these people were not descendents of Abraham, Issac and Jacob and thereby beneficiaries of God’s covenant with Abraham.  Therefore, the miracles had the gracious effect of turning these people who would otherwise not have known God, to God.

4.  Although only the people living in that particular time and place were witnesses to those miracles, the exodus is recorded in the Bible so that subsequent generations of mankind may stand in awe of God and, like the non-Israelites who joined the Israelites in the exodus, put their trust in God.  This, again, is an act of grace.*

* Note : Grace, in Christian theology, is undeserved mercy.  God could have simply struck pharoah and the Egyptians dead when they first refused to listen to Him.  However, He gave them many opportunities to repent instead.  Similarly, though God can judge us immediately whenever we do something wrong, often He does not.  Instead, through the Bible, and through those who have believed in God before us, God shows us how we may repent and avoid condemnation.   This, too, is underserved mercy from God.

In chapter 3 of No god but God, Reza Aslan writes about what he understands to be the true meaning of jihad (holy war) and argues that Islam as originally conceived was a religion of tolerance. 

He suggests that misinterpretation of the Quran (without understanding its cultural and historical context), misunderstanding of the cultural and historical forces that shaped some of Muhammad’s apparently violent / warlike acts, and reinterpretation of the Quran by Muhammad’s successors (some of whom cared more for political and military power than the faith) have resulted in the evolution and perception of Islam as an intolerant faith.  For example, he says that

"… Muhammad’s biographies were written at a time when the Jewish minority in the Muslim state was Islam’s only remaining theological rival.  It is not surprising, therefore, that Muslim historians and theologians would have buttressed their arguments against the rabbinical authorities of their time by planting their words in Muhammad’s mouth.  If Muhammad’s biographies reveal anything at all, it is the anti-Jewish sentiments of the Prophet’s biographers, not of the Prophet himself."

If Aslan is right, then Muhammad would be much less than an apostle or prophet.  He would be a mere man who acted out of political and economic necessity, and sometimes personal ambition, rather than because of a strong sense of his spiritual mission; and who rose to fame and power because of a few lucky breaks rather than divine provision.  In this connection, Aslan wrote that

"In 624 … Muhammad received news that a large caravan was making its way to Mecca from Palestine, the sheer size of which made it too tempting to ignore.  Summoning a band of 300 volunteers … he set out to raid it.  But as his group arrived outside the city of Badr, they were suddenly confronted by a thousand Quraysh warriors.  Muhammad’s plans had been leaked to Mecca ….  For days the two armies surveyed each other from opposite sides … And Muhammad, who must have known that fighting … under these circumstances would result not only in his own death, but in the end of the Ummah, was anxiously awaiting instructions from God. [ Blog author's comment : God's silence in the face of pleas by Muhammad is noteworthy. ] … It was Abu Bakr who, having had enough of the Prophet’s indecisiveness, finally urged him to rise and take part in the battle that, despite Muhammad’s reluctance, had already begun.  ‘O prophet of God,’ Abu Bakr said, ‘do not call upon your Lord so much; for God will assuredly fulfill what he has promised you’.  Muhammad agreed.  Rising to his feet, he finally called upon his small band of followers to trust in God and advance in full against the enemy.  What followed was a fierce skirmish … Astonishingly … the Quraysh were thoroughly routed.  News of the prophet’s victory over the largest and most powerful tribe in Arabia … proved that God had blessed the Messenger.  There were rumours that angels had descended onto the battlefield to slay Muhammad’s enemies. [ Blog author's comment : Since it was Muhammad who first set out to raid the caravan, and in that sense made himself the enemy of the Quraysh, I question if "god" was just in intervening on his behalf. ] … Muhammad … and his followers were now the new political power in the Hijaz."  [ Blog author's comment : Interestingly enough, Muhammad's army - support of "god" notwithstanding - was defeated a year later at the Battle of Uhud. ]

"[Three years after the Battle of Uhud ], the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah [ by the Quraysh ] proposed that in return for [ Muhammad's ] immediate withdrawal and unconditional cessation of all caravan raids in the vicinity of Mecca, Muhammad would be allowed to return in the following pilgrimage season. … Adding insult to injury, Muhammad would be required to sign the treaty not as the Apostle of God but only as teh tribal head of his community.  Given Muhammad’s rapidly growing position in the Hijaz, the treaty was preposterous; more than anything, it demonstrated the certainty of Mecca’s impending defeat [ Blog author's comments : I don't see how, if the Quraysh were indeed waning in power, they could have the audacity to demand such terms ].  Perhaps that is why Muhammad’s followers, who sensed victory lingering only a few kilometers in front of them, were so incensed when the Prophet actually accepted the terms. … It is difficult to say why Muhammad accepted the Treaty … He may have been hoping to regroup and wait for an opportune time to return and conquer Mecca by force.  He may have been observing the Quranic mandate and jihadi doctrine to "fight until oppression ends and God’s law prevails.  But if the enemy desists, then you must cease hostilities".  Whatever the case … in 630 CE, after Muhammad interpreted a skirmish between the Quraysh and some of his followers as a breach of the ceasefire, he marched once more towards Mecca, this time with ten thousand men behind him, only to find the city’s inhabitants welcoming him with open arms."

"… [ Muhammad's conflict with the Jews of his time ] had far more to do with political alliances and economic ties than with a theological debate over scripture … a conflict fueled primarily by tribal partnerships and tax-free markets, not religious zeal.  And while Muhammad’s biographers liked to present him as debating theology with belligerent groups of ‘rabbis’ who show ‘hostility to the apostle in envy, hatred, and malice, because God had chosen His apostle from the Arabs’, the similarities in both the tone and manner of these events and stories of the quarrels Jesus had with the Pharisees points to their function as literary topoi, not historical fact."

Unfortunately, what Aslan - a Muslim raised in the US - says does not square with what Mark A Gabriel relates in his books about being raised as a Muslim in Egypt.  It may be, as Aslan claims, that much of Islam is misinterpreted and wrongly reinterpreted, and that the correct interpretation of Islam is that it is a tolerant faith.  However, the reality (if Mark A Gabriel is to be believed), is that many Muslims in the Middle East are raised to be intolerant towards people of other beliefs.  In short, Aslan may just be overly optimistic about the right way to interpret his misinterpreted, misunderstood and wrongly reinterpreted faith.

The other thing that puzzles me is how Aslan brushes away teachings prescribing intolerance, and claims that they actually stand for tolerance.

Aslan for example points out how, in return for a special "protection tax", Muslim law allowed Jews and Christians "both religious autonomy and the opportunity to share in the social and economic institutions of the Muslim world".  He then contrasts this against how the Christian kingdoms of the west routinely oppressed (admittedly an understatement, seeing how Catholics and Protestants were merrily slaughtering each other and) those of other faiths.  The Muslim law on "protection tax" may have been enlightened at a time when elsewhere, people were routinely oppressed for refusing to adhere to the faith of the ruling (Christian) monarch.  However, there is nothing in the Bible that directs Christian governments to oppress or kill those of other faiths - such oppression is the sad invention of our depraved humanity.  In contrast, the Muslim law on "protection tax" technically still stands, but it would hardly be "tolerant" of a government to tax someone nowadays just because he does not adhere to the faith of the state !  In addition, the Quran does not offer protection in exchange for the payment of a "protection tax" for those who are not "people of the book" (ie. Jews and Christians), directing followers to "slay polytheists wherever you confront them" (9:5)  and to "fight those who do not believe in God and the Last Day" (9 :29) instead.

Aslan explains that the above passages demanding the death of polytheists must be understood in its historical context - that they were directed specifically at the Quraysh against whom Muhammad was at war.  That of course leaves the question of how polytheists - people who were neither Muslims nor "of the book" were to be treated - were to be treated.  I assume not better than "people of the book" !  But perhaps Aslan is right - I am not in a position to judge the validity of his interpretation.  What I can say on this point, though, is that the God of the Bible never directed aggression against non-believers.* 

* Note : There are instances in the Old Testament when God directs Israel to attack and completely destroy certain groups of people living in their vicinity.  Examples include the Midianites in Numbers 31, the Amalakites in 1 Samuel 15, and other peoples in the land of Canaan in Deuteronomy 7.  The rationale of this is sometimes divine judgement (for ambushing or dishonourably attacking Israel, for example), or to avoid corruption of the Jewish faith if they inter-mingled with the pagan peoples in their vicinity.  In as much as such violence comes across as objectionable (perhaps even genocidal) today, they were perhaps necessary in the past when the only way to ensure security was to eliminate the enemy and his kinsmen entirely (amongst other reasons).  However, it is important to note that the God of the Bible had never commanded the killing of people just because they were unbelievers.

It is dinnertime on Saturday and the whole family is very excited.  We sit Jed down in his chair and put a bib round his neck.  Jed looks at the small crowd surrounding him, wide-eyed and curious, before turning his attention to the bib which he pulls towards his mouth to suck.

I bring the camera down to capture this new milestone in Jed’s life.

We empty half a packet of Nestle white rice cereal into a bowl and mix it with breast milk and warm water.  Deciding that the bib is more of a distraction than a help, we take it off.  Then, we spoon the cereal into his mouth.  He doesn’t seem to find the taste of the cereal objectionable.

Thus begins Jed’s first foray into the world of solid foods.

Jed wondering what all this fuss is about (above)

Actually the bib tastes quite yummy too ! (above)

Brought twenty kids from the Sengkang StudentCare to the Presbyterian church funfair this morning.  It was hard work - making sure that the kids didn’t get lost, keeping them from fighting each other (the boys especially), and trying to meet their requests for particular types of food (for some reason all of them had an affection for muah chee) and drink, and demands to play certain games over and over again.  One of the more interesting arguments I had with a kid went something like this :

Boy : Teacher, can you buy me a cold drink ?

Me : Does your mummy or daddy allow you to drink cold drinks ?

Boy : No.

Me : Then I cannot buy you a cold drink.

Boy : Nevermind lah.

Me : But your mummy and daddy asked me to take care of you today.  If they don’t let you drink cold drinks, how can I buy you a cold drink ?

Boy : Did you talk to my mummy and daddy ?  They never ask you to take care of me what !

Me : Well, even though they didn’t talk to me, they let you go out to the funfair with me.  So they expect me to look after you.  I can buy you a bottle of mineral water, do you want ?

I’m glad I don’t work as a childcare teacher !  Still, it was quite satisfying overall.  After a few hours with them, some of the kids were familiar enough with me to hold my hand as we walked and ask that I sit next to them in the bus.

During my regular eye checkup on Tuesday, the examining ophthalmologist, who happened to be a Muslim, observed that I was reading Reza Aslan’s No god but God.  His curiousity piqued, a brief conversation on the meaning of the book title (I hope he was sufficiently impressed that I knew what it meant), and on religion generally, ensued.  In the course of it, we talked briefly about the Muslim theology on Jesus and Muhammad and I explained to him the differences between Roman Catholicism and Christianity / Protestantism.

At the end of the checkup, as I sat on the couch waiting for my MC, I struggled with whether I should pass him Mark A Gabriel’s Jesus and Muhammad, which was in the car (waiting to delivered to Serene).  Conscious of the fact that I could be beheaded for doing something like this in the Middle East, the last thing I wanted to do was offend a Muslim by my insensitivity.  In the end, the sense that this chance conversation was divinely arranged, and that another similar opportunity might never present itself, prevailed.  I asked the ophthalmologist if he would be interested in reading a book by a former Islamic scholar, warning him first of all that it was rather critical of his faith.

I handed him the book, and we exchanged numbers.  Whether this leads to one of the rare breakthroughs in sharing the Gospel, is in God’s hands.

"… neither he who plants [ the Gospel ] nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes [ faith ] grow."  (1 Corinthians 3 : 7)

Serene will have to wait another day for the book.