(I’m going to wallow in self-pity.  Indulge me.)

I think the stress of looking after my Dad is getting to me, manifesting itself physically as breathlessness in the past week.  When it first appeared last week, I thought it had to do with the cold and sore throat that I got an MC for (the first time I’ve taken an MC twice in two months, perhaps also something to do with stress ?).  But at the dining table this morning I thought my heart would burst (obviously it did not which is why I am typing this now).  I could barely eat my breakfast.

For someone who exercises (or used to exercise) regularly, my guess is that it is brought on by the stress, and not an otherwise unhealthy lifestyle.

There is one thing worse than being an only child in a family, as a result of which one has the shoulder the responsibility of looking after a sick parent alone.  It is a situation where one is not the only a child in a family, but nonetheless has to play the role of surrogate spouse and siblings to the sick parent.

Sometimes, this is how I feel.  In fact, I think that many times I try to be the wife or daughters at my father’s side.  Otherwise he would be more alone.  Maybe my trying too hard is now starting to kill me.

I can’t help but feel sometimes that this is unfair.  I was neither the favourite child, nor was a lot of attention showered on me (Joyce’s theory that my personality is withdrawn as a consequence - something that she proudly claims to have remedied at least partly upon hooking up with me).  I am in fact tempted to think that sheer pragmatism drives my Dad to express gratefulness for my presence by his side - my siblings, and especially the older of my two sisters who is his favourite, are too unreliable.

How very King Lear-ish.

Therefore I find it highly ironic when bystanders say that they envy our close father-son relationship.  David in fact mentioned this the other day.  The reality is that it was almost non-existent until I decided that I would love him no matter what.

There are two fountains from which I draw this strength - perhaps now failing - to love.  The first is Joyce, who has showed me how to love, and whom I know loves me, as unconditionally as humanly possible.  The second is God, who loves absolutely unconditionally, and in whose hands I by faith - perhaps also waning - commit an uncertain tomorrow.

As I drove to office from hospital today, I prayed that the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, would guard my heart and mind in Christ Jesus.  I feel better now.

There is a pastor, David, who is also struggling with cancer and who is in the same ward as Dad.  He has been a tremendous encouragement to the both of us.  I discovered today that he has a blog in which he has recorded his battle with cancer : www.prayfordavid.blogspot.com.

In case you missed it, there is a comment on my previous post on the Gospel of Judas, which I’ve replied to, both here.

The possibility of a loved one dying, if I may make an understatement, is a depressing thought.  How does one even begin to talk (or in the present case, blog) about it ?

For this reason, I’ve not blogged about the relapse of my dad’s cancer even though he has been warded at the Singapore General Hospital for treatment since Monday.  Though my dad did not look very sickly, the doctor told us in no uncertain terms that his situation was critical and that the next few days could mean "life or death".

However, by the mercies of God, the mood over the week has changed, from hopelessness to hope, from fear of death to joy.

The turning point was when, on the second day, my dad decided to surrender all the anger and hurt that he had been harbouring over many years, to God.  It also helped that in the same ward as my dad was a pastor suffering from the same condition, but who confronted his illness with a lot more joy.

The mood had changed so much that, when Joyce and I visited on Saturday evening, we witnessed smiles and laughter for the first time in many days.  My dad was talking cheerfully with the pastor, who was getting ready to attend an easter concert in church with his family, at the invitation of a doctor who was performing.

How can one experience joy and laughter in the face of suffering and death ?  There are no easy answers, especially when we are personally confronted with such tragedy, either in the form of our suffering and death, or the suffering and death of a loved one.

But looking at my dad and the pastor, and with Easter - the day that Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ - approaching the next day (and past at the time I’m writing this), I could only think of one way : our hope in Jesus Christ.

"Jesus said … ‘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’."  (John 11 : 25 - 26)

"… Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep … in Christ all will be made alive … [ and since ] death has been swallowed up in victory, where, O death, is your victory ?  Where, O death, is your sting ?"  (1 Corinthians 15 : 12 - 58)

"For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.  If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labour for me.  Yet … I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far."  (Philippians 1 : 21 - 26)

If upon death we do not die forever, but begin a new life with God, does it matter so much that we should live a little longer, and not die today ?  Where, O death, is your sting ?

Jed is now five months old.  Although he can’t sit up on his own, he will use his hands to prop himself up when we put him in a sitting position.  After a glorious 10 or so seconds, he flops onto the bed.

Of all the articles written on the Gospel of Judas, A Real Discovery or Gross Betrayal is one of the best I’ve read to date.  So good, that I’ve decided to reproduce it verbatim in this post.

The article was written by Dr Tan Kim Huat, a professor of the New Testament at the Trinity Theological College, Singapore, and published in the Straits Times on 15 April 2006.

The discovery of the Gospel of Judas has given rise to great media excitement which, in turn, has stoked public interest in the development of early Christianity.

A typical assessment of its value was that given by Dr Elaine Pagels (Gospel of Judas revives old debate; ST, April 12).

Dr Pagels, a professor of religion at Princeton University in the United States, made two central claims :

- that the Gospel of Judas opens up new perspectives on familiar Gospel stories; and

- that it explodes the myth of a monolithic Christianity by showing how diverse the early Christian movement really was.

This is fine rhetoric but when the dust settles and people have a chance to reflect more objectively, it will be seen that the Gospel of Judas is not what it is touted to be.

Its existence has been known to the Chruch since AD180 through the work of Iraneaus (Against Heresies) but its discovery affords us an opportunity to read the actual contents of this document for the very first time.

And what do we find when we analyse the contents ?  They add precious little to what we already know through the discovery of the Nag Hammadi documents in 1945.  These documents have been given the label "Gnostic literature" by many scholars.

The Gospel of Judas champions Judas by portraying him as the perceptive and obedient disciple who was instrumental in setting Jesus free from the flesh that clothed him, and not the mercenary betrayer that Christian tradition has made him out to be.

Furthermore, in contrast to the clueless apostles, Judas was given esoteric knowledge by Jesus.  The document also speaks of the creator of the cosmos as the lesser god.

These are stock ideas of the Gnostic literature.  Such ideas are not new to Christian theologians, as Gnostic literature has been a staple subject for study in Christian seminaries for centuries.

Those who tout the importance of the Gospel of Judas admit just as much, although they warn against understanding the term "Gnosticism" perjoratively.  Instead, they press for Gnosticism to be recognised as a legitimate alternative to the Christianity that is known to millions today.

Their case is that Christianity was diverse in its nascent period and it was through some powerful political manoeuvring that Christianity came to be what it is today.

This then is really the nub of the issue.  Is Gnosticism a variety of Christianity or is it a mutation so dangerous that it should be treated as heresy ?

The discovery of the Gospel of Judas does not add to out knowledge of second century Gnosticism; it only provides an opportunity to highlight an ongoing debate.

Recently, Gnosticism has become the proverbial underdog and earned the sympathy of many.  But what is seldom considered is this : What is the established Christian Church (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) accept Gnosticism as a legitimate form of Christianity ?  I can think of four fallouts that may persaude many to fight for a different underdog.

The first fallout is that the Church will prize esoteric knowledge above exoteric knowledge (that is, knowledge that is open and intelligible to the public) because Gnosticism feeds on the distinction between these two forms and privileges the former.

Esoteric knowledge will favour the few and give rise to elitism.  The dangers of this are apparent to all.  Chruch leaders will then be brokers between the divine and their charges.  Scripture will not be the brake but the accelerator impelling the Church to slide down the slope of exploitation and corruption.

The second fallout is this : Creation will be deemed to be unimportant - even evil - since it is the work of a lesser god who fell from his / her pristine purity.  It follows that the earlier we are set free from the body, the better it will be for us.  The earlier that matter is obliterated, the better it will be for the spirit.  Not only will this disparage the body but also all of creation.  Even without this emphasis, as a human race we are finding it hard to cope with out profligate ways of denuding the earth.  What if this Gnostic tenet becomes the express dogma of the Church ?

The third fallout follows on from the second.  History and cultural rootedness will be sacrificed.  Gnostic literature shows one glaring lack when compared to the four canonical Gospels : the Jewish background of Jesus is not mentioned at all.  Why this is so could be anybody’s guess.  It could be that it was inspired by what is now termed as anti-Semintism or it could be that it emphasised the grand universal at the expense of the particular.

Over the years, the Church has been challenged in many ways to avoid taking this road.  If such a road is now sanctioned, who knows what will happen to Jews or other cultures in places where the Church is prominent ?

It is thus a mystifying phenomenon that many post-moderns who support the Gnostic movement cannot perceive that it actually leads to the creation of what they fear most : a meta narrative of the grossest kind.

The fourth fallout is that what has been held dear by many Christians - the events of Good Friday and Easter Sunday - will be stripped of their significance because the Gnostic literature does not offer accounts of Passion Week, omits the crucifixion of Jesus and, consequently, plays down the importance of the resurrection.

It was faith in the crucified and resurrected Christ that sustained many early Christian matyrs and many beneficient enterprises of the Chruch.  Theologically speaking, these events sound the message of the One Creator who was so committed to His creation that He gave Himself for its redemption.  A Gnostic Christianity will only emphasise knowledge and self-help.

When the above scenario is envisaged, it is not surprising that Iraneaus and his many comrages thought it imperative that Gnosticism should not hold sway.  Of course, if this was how Christianity was at the very beginning, these converts could have easily given up their faith.

There was no incentive to keep it anyway, since it led to persecution by the Roman Empire.  But they knew that Christianity at its beginning was not so and they sought to prevent their flock from espousing this mutated form of Christianity.

And this is something that all supporters of the Gnostic movement are aware of - their documents are at least a hundered years later than the four canonical Gospels and they do not give us any knowledge of first century Christianity.

It is commendable to fight for the underdogs but we have to make sure they are really what we want to fight for.

Click here to read my previous post on this topic.

In my few years of work, I’ve encountered some really bad mitigation pleas. 

For example, when I first started work, I observed a case of a lady prosecuted for a breach of financial regulations in failing to disclose the extent of her indebtedness.  In mitigation, the lawyer defending her listed all her debts and pleaded for leniency because of those debts.  That list included debts that the lady did not disclose (perhaps deliberately) during the investigations.  Needless to say, the Court was not impressed and meted out a heavier sentence.

The front page of the Straits Times today (14 April 2006) carried a report about a man who was prosecuted for 40-something instances of sexually abusing his five daughters with the assistance of, get this, of his multiple wives.  According to the report, he subverted parts of the Quran to convince his wives to do so, arguing that he had ownership over his children and that this extended to having sex with them.  These were not uneducated women, mind you, some were in fact polytechnic graduates.  Nonetheless, and very amazingly, these dutiful wives complied and helped prepare their daughters for these incestuous encounters with the father.  The eldest daughter finally, and thankfully, had the sense to report him to the police.

More unbelievable than the facts of the above case itself, and somewhat hilarious if not for the tragedy of the situation, is the mitigation plea put forward by the man’s lawyer.  If the report is to be believed, the plea was made along these lines :

"The man’s lawyer … said the patriach, who ran his own firm, was stressed out by having to provide for his large family.  [ My note : it's self-induced - the man had four wives and twenty children ].  To add to these worries, he learnt that the girls were behaving inappropriately with boys.  He concluded that having sex with his daughters to ’satisfy’ them, so they would be less likely to go with others, was the lesser of  two evils …"

What sort of mitigation plea is that ?  I trust that the Court will be unimpressed.

On last Sunday night (9 April), the National Geographic channel in Singapore (and I believe elsewhere in the world) aired a two hour documentary on the "Gospel of Judas", a gnostic text that allegedly gives an account of Jesus’ life from the perspective of Judas.  It is, in other words, an alternative or additional gospel according to Judas.  And in office today, several Christians and I discussed whether what the text says is true.  Is it so unbelievable that Judas may have "betrayed" Jesus on His instructions ?

Without the benefit of having read the entire text, my thoughts are as follows :

1.  Unless the other gospels are to be disbelieved, Judas had committed suicide in shame after betraying Jesus.  Consequently, it is very unlikely that Judas could have written or passed down his "gospel" orally before his death.  The improbability increases if you consider that there are (probably) details in the text that could only have been known to someone who had witnessed what took place first hand, and had the opportunity to record it (or relate it to someone else who later recorded it); but none other than Judas (who committed suicide) or the other eleven disciples (who could not understand the "secret knowledge" and hence could not have written or related the gospel of Judas) were in such a position.  In short, the details in the "gospel" are more likely to be accounts invented by people after the death of Judas, and after the death and resurrection of Jesus.  In this connection, some experts have said that the gospel of Judas did not circulate until about 150 years after Jesus died.

2.  The theology in the gospel of Judas is not consistent and is in many ways contradictory to the theology in other parts of the Bible.  The gospel of Judas describes itself as "the secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot" and then goes into the "mysteries of the kingom" (which, I suspect, one would probably still not understand even after reading the "gospel", because only Judas had full understanding of this secret knowledge that leads to salvation).  In contrast, the rest of the Bible does not say that salvation is only for a select few to whom has been granted special knowledge.  It says, instead, that the gospel "is the power of God for the salvation for everyone who believes" (Romans 1 : 16) - nothing secret about that !  Therefore, it is not correct to think of the gospel of Judas as, to use the words of Elaine Pagels, a professor (huh ?) of religion at Princeton University, some "higher level teaching" that is compatible with the rest of the Bible.

3.  The danger of false teachings, as once propogated by the gnostics using gospel of Judas and other gnostic texts, illustrates that while the Christian faith must be personalised, it should not be personal.  Faith must be personalised in the sense that Christians must individually and personally know and understand what their faith is about.  However, faith should not be personal in the sense that one can pick and choose, mix and match, whatever one wants to believe in regardless of how objectively unbelievable it is.  Unfortunately, there are many people who treat faith as something entirely personal (an "it doesn’t matter if it isn’t true for others so long as I personally believe in it" attitude), and who place their trust in teachings that are inconsistent with what the Bible says.

One final note.  The gospel of Judas, as I understand, does not end with the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  It ends abruptly - Jesus is betrayed to the pharisees and led away. 

In 1 Corinthians 15 : 12 - 19, the Apostle Paul writes

If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.  And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.  More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God … And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.  Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.  If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

With Good Friday and Easter round the corner, I think it would be appropriate to point out that there is little cheer in how the gospel of Judas ends.  Jesus does not die and rise from the dead.  The gospel of Judas offers no certainty of salvation from sin.

But the fact is that the early Christians refused to renounce their faith in Jesus in the face of persecution by the Roman authorities - scorn, suffering, torture and death.  Why ?  It can only be because of the hope of salvation from sin and death, as they saw in the death and resurrection of Christ, and which the true gospels accurately record for believers today.

From time to time, we read in the newspapers of sick perverts who steal women’s underwear in university hostels.  Never did I imagine that I would fall victim to such audacity today.

(No, in case you are wondering, I do not wear women’s underwear.  Now let me continue with the story …)

After visiting my dad in hospital, I decided to check the nearby SAFRA gym out using my complimentary access pass.  Upon finishing my workout, I left my sweaty gym wear at the communal bench in the male shower room (no it wasn’t a communal shower) and proceeded to wash up.  When I returned to the bench, only my running top remained.  The shorts was missing.

I checked - several times - to be sure that I did not drop it by accident while carrying it from the bench to the locker, or from the bench to the shower, etc.  No such luck.  I can only imagine that some sick pervert must have taken my shorts. 

I was sorely tempted to glare at everyone in the changing room to see if the culprit would own up.  But I decided that that might just send everyone in the changing room - all in various stages of undress - a wrong signal of the queer kind.

I suppose I could be quite flattered that someone finds my sweaty running shorts desirable enough to be worth stealing.  Even Joyce cannot bring herself to let me hug her, post-workout.

I am in fact quite upset.  This is my newest set of running attire, and probably the last of its size for the season which, I would proudly add, I had bought at a substantial discount a couple of months ago.  Now all I have left is a running top without a matching bottom.  (I think at least that much of me is metrosexual).

If you happen to be the sick pervert who stole my shorts, I hope you suffer from some major rash at whichever part of your body you apply it to.