AGM Season is Upon Us!

The Annual General Meeting Makan Season was upon us again. We counted at least 30 physical AGMs on 28 April alone. AGMs are meetings of shareholders required under statutory legislation during which the shareholders pass resolutions, appoint directors and query the management on aspects of the company, its management and its business.

AGMs are usually held in the ballrooms of hotels and it is a tradition for Singapore-listed companies to provide a buffet spread for the shareholders after the meeting.

In Singapore, AGMs bring out the worst in the kiasu Singaporean shareholder. Many Singaporean shareholders go to AGMs for the freebies and buffet food, not because of their interest in the company and its performance.

The Straits Times Money Page reporters gleefully chronicled the ugly antics last year:

• shareholders would turn up to AGMs armed with huge bags filled with tupperware sets, styrofoam containers and plastic bags to cart away the free food;
• impatient shareholders would leave the room during the counting of polling slips, approach the hotel staff outside and demand that they remove the lids on the serving trays and allow them to have a headstart on the food;
• when the chairman declared the meeting to be officially over, and the doors to the buffet opened, there would a desperate rush for the buffet outside, shareholders trampling over all that stood in their way. Yelling,"Don't push! Don't push!" at the others, the shareholders would snatch the biggest plates (to ensure the biggest holding area) and grab the choicest food (seafood items like king prawns, lobster and smoked salmon being the first the go, and cheaper items like egg sandwiches, the last); and
  
• well-prepared shareholders would sneak food into their tupperware sets and styrofoam containers, tipping entire trays into their plastic bags (some having some sort of decency to appear to be chewing the food while doing so (although it was quite clear they had nothing in their mouths)).

Of course, AGMs are also great for people-watching, if you're into that kind of thing:

• aged female shareholders with translucent skirts, showing off their brightly-coloured knickers under the artificial lighting;
• other old female shareholders holding court, bewigged, gesticulating with chunky bling-blings and outlandish fashion, rabidly air-kissing, hailing everyone loudly as "Dahling!";
  
• dishevelled shareholders smelling of urea grabbing gravy-soaked food with grubby hands and thereafter wiping their fingers on trays of plain noodles;
• members of the Panel of Directors and Advisors Sitting Ducks falling asleep during a particularly boring meeting, head lolling, conspicuously drooling and gently snoring;
• demanding shareholders asking to be served vegetarian food but specifying "make sure not all the food is vegetables"; and
  
• blow-ups between chairmen and unruly or obnoxious shareholders. A Straits Times report of last year's SGX AGM went something like this:
  "Appropriate conduct, or the lack of it, at AGMs became a big talking point after a heated exchange last October at the Singapore Exchange (SGX) AGM between chairman J.Y. Pillay and a veteran AGM attender, Mr Ramesh Sheth. The normally unflappable Mr J.Y. Pillay, 69, whipped out a gavel - something that I have never seen outside a courtroom - and threatened to evict retail investor Ramesh Sheth, 71, from the room.
  Mr Pillay then gave vent to some memorable quotes, rare among the wooden soundbites from our corporate leaders. Excerpts from the exchange include Mr Pillay scolding Mr Sheth sharply: 'The biggest sin is to bore me to death!'
  Mr Sheth had been asking various questions on stock options and management pay. He had wanted to know why certain management's pay was not disclosed.
  Mr Pillay said irritably: 'Stop haranguing me. Listen, you must understand that I don't like people who waste my time.'
  But Mr Sheth refused to be silenced and spoke even louder.
  Mr Pillay said: 'When I give you an answer, that's my answer, and you're not so stupid that you don't understand my answer.'
  Even then, Mr Sheth raised his voice, saying: 'If I don't understand, then I want an explanation...I have a right to an answer.' It was this that really made Mr Pillay see red.
  The chairman rose to his feet saying: 'You will be disciplined. If you do not behave yourself, I will ask the bailiff to remove yourself from this room, shareholder or no shareholder.'
  Shareholders were riveted to the action and there was even some horrified laughter."
  

This year, my AGM-hosting experience was pretty mild considering...all I suffered were:

• shareholders circling me suspiciously, wondering where I had stashed the complimentary carpark coupons (other shareholders hovering nearby like vultures, ready to rush in if and when the carpark coupons were produced from their suspected hiding places);
• shareholders demanding "door gifts" and threatening to go off to some other AGM where "door gifts" were available;
• shareholders looking around first to see that no other shareholder was in hearing range and asking in a whisper if the share price of the company would go up in the future; and
  
• shareholders trying to sneak in their various friends and relatives and when prevented from doing so, loudly exclaiming how we broke up their merry party.
  

Wikipedia states that "there appears little in the way of specifically Singaporean culture". The peasants! They obviously haven't been to an AGM in Singapore. There is work to be done! The Singapore Tourism Board should stop depleting our cultural heritage by renovation and upgrading and start selling spectator tickets to AGM buffets.

Being part of the Presbyterian church in Singapore, ARPC is required to hold AGMs every year as well, calling them ACMs ("Annual Congregational Meetings"). In the past few years, we have been omniously serving a buffet lunch to the congregation after the ACM. Will we in time see such AGM horror at our ACMs?

As Christians, we know that we are sinners and that given half the opportunity, we would have acted no better (and perhaps worse) than the ugly shareholders at AGMs.

But we also know that we are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God (1 Peter 2:9). So when we meet as a family, indwelt by the same Spirit, may we not act in selfishness and sin but declare the praises of him who called us out of darkness into his wonderful light. May we live as aliens and strangers in the world, abstaining from sinful desires, which war against our soul. For once we were not a people, but now we are the people of God; once we had not received mercy, but now we have received mercy (1 Peter 2:9-11).

Corduroy & Finch, Transparent Lives and Blogging

Sat next to someone playing with the new PSP in the MRT. Sweeet.

butt view

I must have a strong stomach. After watching a certain Sony Playstation commercial, we sailed up to Corduroy & Finch, that new yuppie and tai-tai cafe-deli near Sixth Avenue, still able to partake of dinner and find it very yums! Thick mushroom soup, hearty hungarian goulash, tender tenderloin sitting on top of sliced roast potatoes, wholesome pasta, homey cakes with creamy vanilla bean ice-cream, hot chocolate topped with marshmellows...

Transparent Kitchens
But the Sony Playstation commercial lent a newfound appreciation for the current kitchen-as-showcase, chef-as-performer, fishtank approach to restaurant interior design. At least you can see (more or less) what the chef is doing to your food! Corduroy & Finch goes one-up with a walk-in glass chiller with stacks of caviar tins, wooden boxes of farm cheese and plump red tomatoes and almost flawless purple aubergines heaped enticingly in wicker baskets on industrial shelves.

Transparent Lives
The glass-encased kitchen reminded me of that old challenge often bandied about amongst Christians (especially in leaders' pep talk sessions): How do we live as God's people? Do we live transparent lives?

What's this about "transparent lives"? I've always wondered. If you do a search on Bible Gateway, there's no such phrase in the Bible. It implies living as if in a house made of glass, not hiding any aspect of one's life. Some instinct shouts out at us that that's a very foolish thing to do: why should anyone announce their weaknesses and failures and deep dark secrets and embarrassing past to the world at large? Why should everyone know what happens in our lives? What about privacy?

Nakedness and Shame
Privacy...We all know an oldie who has waved a despairing finger at the present trend of ceiling-to-floor windows, muttering,"Young people nowadays have no shame.".

The interesting thing is that shame didn't come into the world until the Fall. Adam and Eve were walking around happily without any clothes on until the end of Genesis 2. They were naked before each other and naked before God and were not ashamed (Genesis 2:25). Their physical nakedness symbolised their relational nakedness: they were completely comfortable with each other and with God and had nothing to hide from anyone. Their lives were transparent and they weren't afraid.

When Adam and Eve decided to rebel against God their rightful king, however, things spiralled downwards very quickly. Their relationship with God was fatally ruptured. Their relationship with each other was hostile and antagonistic: Adam blamed God for putting Eve in the Garden with him and he blamed Eve for making him rebel against God. Adam and Eve were no longer comfortable with each other. Their decision to rule and be the kings in their own individual lives, loving themselves over God and over the other person cast a shadow on their conscience: they could no longer relate transparently. With makeshift clothes of fig leaves (Genesis 3:7), they tried to cover up their physical nakedness in an effort to be less relationally naked. Transparency became a terrifying thing.

And God's presence was no longer comforting. Mere creatures, Adam and Eve had tried to take the place of the Creator. A coup d'état (especially one bound to fail) really does not do wonders for your relationship with the ruler you tried to seize power from. Adam and Eve didn't want to face him. They were afraid and hid among the trees of the Garden (Genesis 3:8). The past happy easy-going transparency in their intimate relationship had vanished into thin air.

Something good seemed irretrievably lost.

God affirms that these relationships are well and truly broken by clothing Adam and Eve in garments of skin (Genesis 3:21). It's one of those poignant symbolic statements of the end of a relationship: like your fiancée returning you her engagement ring, or your father cutting out your pictures from the family album.

Repentant Nakedness
As Christians, when we repented from living lives our own way and acknowledged God as our king, we no longer tried to hide from God. We crawled out of the darkness and into the light and saw ourselves in reality for the first time. In the light of the gospel, painfully and all too clearly, we realised how utterly disgusting and slimy and smelly and ugly we were; how embarrassingly ungrateful and rude and unjust and selfish; how deserving of God's wrath and condemnation and judgement.

Of course we couldn't ever hide from God who is all-seeing and all-knowing. But in taking the first step of repentance, we saw ourselves as God saw us. We saw how horrible our nakedness was and were ashamed. We didn't try to hide our ugly nakedness with the fine clothes and jewels of this world nor our stench with heavy perfume. Instead, we acknowledged our position and trusted God to deliver us from the horror of our selves through his Son.

Naked and Comfy: Transparent Lives
So the "transparent" lives we are to live now as redeemed people are not self-centred reality TV lives, nor webcam lives, nor tell-all tabloid lives, nor wash-dirty-linen-in-public Jerry Springer lives, nor look-how-cool-and-hip-I-am blog lives. These all point again to ourselves, more specifically, to the love of ourselves, which is the foundation of sin.

God brought us into relationship with himself again so that we can now live as God intended us to live: in a comfortable close relationship with God and comfortable close relationships with each other. So that we can stand before God naked without shame, because our sins have been paid for; and we can be naked before each other, without shame, because we are all a family of saved sinners.

[Note: Before Chris (Chia) and the other leaders have me shot for encouraging streaking and other sure-kenna-indecent-exposure-and-other-dodgy-penal-code offences in ARPC...in the present age, before the coming of Christ, this nakedness can at most be relational nakedness because sin is still rampant.]

This newfound ability to be naked yet comfortable is for our enjoyment and ultimately for the glory of God who worked it all out according to his plan. So our enjoyment of this nakedness does not dwell on ourselves, because there is no intrinsic beauty in our nakedness, but on God because he has given us this good gift.

So the "transparent" lives we are to lead should be:

• WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get): we should live consistently: not as fakes, phonies, or hypocrites. We should not act godly on Sunday and then live like the devil the rest of the week. We should not be sweet, kind, patient and loving before church members or in our blogs but irritating, angry, demanding, controlling, and selfish before our families or colleagues or in "real life"! As T.S. Eliot said of Charles Williams:"Some people are less than their works, some are more. Charles Williams cannot be placed in either class. To have known the man would have been enough, to know his books is enough. He was the same man in his life and in his writings."
• Christ-centred: we cannot confess Christ with our lips but live as if we do not know him. Set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed (1 Peter 1:13). Trust completely in the reality that God has revealed in the Bible. We either trust him or we don't. If we do, then we think he is sturdy and should lean completely on him. We should make all our decisions based on that reality, not the fatal illusion that the world would have us believe.
• Christ-like: if we are to live transparent lives, then what would people see? They should see Christ-likeness: self-control, upright, holy, godly lives marked by love, patience, endurance, long-suffering, humility, compassion, obedience, not given to lusts or the desires of the flesh. Christians are the lamps, not the light. In our transparency, the light of Christ should shine into the darkness of the world. Our lives should bring glory to God. So even in doing God's work in evangelism, we are not to use trickery or deviousness. We are to set forth the message plainly without deception and without distorting it (2 Corinthians 4:2).
• authentic and honest:
  
• (1) if we truly see ourselves in the light, we know that we are not completely consistent or Christ-centred or Christ-like. If we live in light of the full brightness of God's truth, our actions, desires, motives and thoughts are exposed for what they really are, and they fall far short of the ideal.
  
• (2) Some people tend to put "spiritual mentors" on pedestals. This is especially tempting when this person lives in another country or we don't see them very often. The people we live closely with, we see clearly with warts and all and don't think they are qualified to minister to us or disciple us. In fact, when our sinful natures collide, we might even quarrel and break fellowship with each other.
  
• (3) If we are in a position of mentorship, we may be tempted to hide all our sinfulness to avoid discouraging our mentee. But this is false living. It is deceitful and deceptive and ultimately ungodly. We are all sinners saved by grace. We should live as sinners saved by grace: openly admitting our sinful ways and openly striving to live in a godly way depending on God.
  
• (4) It is only by confessing our sins to each other and having others hold us accountable and praying for each other that we can encourage each other to maturity in Christ (James 5).
  
• Hence in the wake of the recent blogosphere hoohaa about the un-PC content of certain blogs (within the church and without. but this is a general statement, not directed at any specific situation), it doesn't seem a good idea to discourage (but what does "discouragement" mean?) people from blogging their true feelings, emotions and thoughts, saying that this is irresponsible and will discourage others. This puts pressure on outward conformity to forms of godliness without any inward change. This advocates a false community where everyone tries their hardest to appear "sorted" (whatever that means) but struggle alone in their hearts with normal sinful living. Let people bring their struggles and sins into the light so that everyone can help each other with them. The ability to be transparent is supposed to be one of the blessings of a Christian community.

[Have been reminded by SB that just as turning ARPC into a nudist colony is not on in the here and now because we are sinners (albeit saved sinners) living in a sinful world, so we should not always expect transparency in the family of God to be given and appreciated by our brothers and sisters because we are sinners (albeit saved sinners) living in a sinful community.

But even as we struggle to live rightly in the sinful flesh now, we look towards a day when we will have to struggle no more. On that day, we will no longer have to hide from God and from each other in suspicion, terror and insecurity. Then, we will be able to see each other face to face, and enjoy open, honest, transparent, secure, loving, intimate relationships with God and with each other without fear or shame.]

Miyazaki Madness, Ecology & God's Environmental Rescue Plan

Japanese animation in the 1980s consisted of transformer robots and space fortresses, laser-blasting and high-technology. When the movie Nausicaä came out during that period, Miyazaki was established as a one-man sub-genre. He did not idolise the gleaming metal and glass surfaces of the "mecha" school. Instead, Miyazaki created a post-apocalyptic world of fluttering insects, swarming herds, stampeding Ohmu, hard discarded shells, soft moss, clouds of sand, lush forests, tangled fungi, bristles, drifting spores and spurting fluids; of natural phenomena. A self-organising system which had evolved to clean up the pollution of past human follies but which humans were presently trying to destroy, fearful of things they could not understand.

Nausicaä, on the other hand, communicated with the Ohmu, understood the behaviour of the insects and purpose of the advancing forest in cleansing the earth from the technological filth of mankind.

The marvellous thing about Miyazaki's anime is the many threads in each story and commonalities across films:

• the human inability to communicate and have relationship with animals and insects; and
  
• their inability to understand the environment and so its subsequent degradation, abuse and depletion
  

are just two of these threads. His environmentalism is new-agey, based on almost spiritual understanding between humanity and nature.

Said Miyazaki,"I think it better to think of environmental problems in view of "courtesy" proposed by Ryotaro Shiba (1923-1996), a novelist who has written about many distinguished figures in the history of Japan. We need courtesy toward water, mountains, and air in addition to living things. We should not ask courtesy from these things, but we ourselves should give courtesy toward them instead. I do believe the existence of the period when the "power" of forests was much stronger than our power. There is something missing within our attitude toward nature."

Not bad for a card-carrying atheist and one-time communist.

Perhaps an important pre-requisite of communicating with animals and other creatures is to be able to see them first. In "My Neighbour Totoro", there are creatures that only children can see: the makkuro kurosuke or susu-atari (fluffy soot bunnies) who in habit vacant houses and fly away sadly when houses become occupied

a small sometimes translucent white creature called Chibi Totoro and a larger blue version called Chu Totoro who have a fetish for acorns and a habit of losing them through a rip in their bag

Totoro, a giant shambling forest spirit that looks like a cross between a huge bunny rabbit and a racoon and lives in a camphor tree

and a cat bus: comfy seats and quick transportation.

In this movie, the lush fertile countryside is portrayed as a panacea for ill-health, with its fresh air and clean bountiful harvests.

Totoro is given a poker face. Its cheshire cat, Colgate smile is incomprehensible and rigid, no reflection of its thoughts or emotions. Miyazaki decided that Totoro's expression ought not reveal what it is thinking. He wanted to portray someone or something whose existence per se (even without actual interaction with it) has strong meaning or warm feelings for us. "Courtesy", not quite communication.

Miyazaki hoped that instead of staying indoors and watching Totoro every day (once a year is enough! he said), this movie would induce children to enjoy nature, run in available forests and pick up acorns.

Another young female protagonist who could communicate with animals was Kiki in "Kiki's Delivery Service". As a young witch, she and her black cat were raised together from infancy and so can communicate with each other. Their close bond and intimate relationship comes to a halt when Kiki grows up and becomes independent. She can no longer understand what her cat is saying, hearing only "meow"s.

Another type of relationship between mankind and nature is hinted at in "Laputa: Castle in the Sky". Laputa was a highly-advanced civilisation which built and lived on a floating island in the sky. Its reality is later dismissed as mere fantasy, but 2 children eventually find their way to it. When they arrive, it is deserted. It is explained at the end of the show that this technologically-dependent civilisation lived apart from the earth for far too long and so perished.

In "Spirited Away", another young female protagonist is tasked as an employee of a bathhouse to attend to a large disgusting slimeball of something that looks like sewage comes to the bathhouse as a guest.

It carries such a stench, squelching through the corridors, that it clears the bathhouse. Yubaba believes at first it must be a stink spirit and assigns new employee Chihiro to help it bathe. It turns out that what had been mistaken for a stink spirit is actually a water spirit altered beyond recognition by human pollution. It was entangled with an incredible array of garbage and discarded metal objects and lost its identity because the real river was filled in for a housing development.

But Miyazaki isn't simplistically against modernisation and technology nor advocating a return to nature without qualification. He has said,"It is not simply a matter of whether technology is good or bad. It is more complicated. In my view, technology is the fate of people in a modern society...I'm not against technology. But you must know how to use it. If I knew how to use it, then I would say, "Why not?" But for me it doesn't seem so easy to manipulate and operate it."

"One of my biggest frustrations is that because I deal with issues of ecology in my films, people automatically want to dismiss me as an 'ecology filmmaker'. But making a film involves testing all of your own values, as well as reflecting the world around you -- and in the world today, I don't believe you can escape addressing these themes. In one way, a film is for escape, but it can't only have that function."

What values should Christians have in relation to nature, ecology, the environment and animals?

• Should we place no value at all on nature and eschew all material and physical things as evils of the world?
  
• Or should we place so much value on nature that we tie ourselves to trees to prevent deforestation, murder animal-killers and destroy companies who test their products on animals?

Have a look at God's Environmental Rescue Plan

********

Miyazaki Madness (Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind)
Earth in crisis: is this the biggest moral issue we face?
Images from Nausicaa.net and Studio Ghibli.

God's Environmental Rescue Plan

What values should Christians have in relation to nature, ecology, the environment and animals?

• Should we place no value at all on nature and eschew all material and physical things as evils of the world?
  
• Or should we place so much value on nature that we tie ourselves to trees to prevent deforestation, murder animal-killers and destroy companies who test their products on animals?

False Views of Nature
Low View of Nature
Vaughan Roberts writes that many believe that the universe came into existence by accident. Then according to the Darwinian view, the process of evolution took over. There was no Creator, no guiding hand, just chance. The result is a low view of nature. If things exist simply by accident, they have no intrinsic value. If you believe in the survival of the fittest, what is to stop you from imposing your human strength on the rest of nature without regard for any of the consequences, except those that directly affect you?

High View of Nature
Partly as a reaction to this diminished view of the natural world, an alternative pantheistic view, originating from Asia, has become increasing popular in the West in recent years. Nature is regarded as divine. The whole universe is believed to be God, or part of God. It is not distinct from him but rather emanates out of him. We are bound together with everything else in the universe and with God too because God is in everything and is everything.

The opening words of the Bible challenge both these views: the first is too low and the other is too high.

Nature is neither an accident nor divine. Everything that exists was created by God (Genesis 1:1). He is the transcendant God, above and beyond all that he has made. The earth is distinct from God and lower than him, but it has great value. He created a good, ordered and beautiful world.

Creation is Good
Many Eastern philosophies and religions are dualistic: dividing the spiritual and the material. The material and physical is seen as either evil or illusory. God is believed to be concerned exclusively with the spiritual. That is not so with Christianity. We are not to cut ourselves off from the material world and deny ourselves physical pleasures. We are not holy if we remain celibate and live on bread and water. That would be a clear denial of the clear teaching of the Bible, that everything God created is good. Genesis 1 stresses the point repeatedly.

Creation is Ordered
At first, "the earth was formless and empty" (Genesis 1:2). God had created matter but he had not yet arranged or organised it. Then, he brought order to that chaos: separating light from darkness, waters of the heavens from waters of the seas, forming the universe, the earth, the sky and the seas and he filled them with vegetation, seed-bearing plants and animals "according to their various kinds". In these separations and different categories, we see the order of God's creation. Everything has its place.

Creation is Beautiful
God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground and they were pleasing to the eye and good for food. God was not just concerned to make a functional creation that worked but it wanted it to be beautiful. He also created us with an aesthetic sense and made things of beauty for us to enjoy. We must be sure to show proper gratitude by stopping to enjoy and admire the beautiful world that God has created and appreciating it.

Some Christians are such activists that we feel guilty if we're not busy trying to achieve something. We may even imply that those who make time to walk in God's creation, or to appreciate a work of art, a good book, or a piece of music, are wasting their time. But we are not machines. God has made a beautiful world. We should be grateful and enjoy it.

Creation Glorifies God
God's creation speaks of his great qualities: his power, goodness and splendour. This is the supreme goal of all that exists: to praise and glorify its Creator. "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands" (Psalm 19:1) says the psalmist. The apostle Paul goes so far as to say that atheism and idolatry are inexcusable. We should all know from the world around us that there is a great Creator, above and beyond all that he has made, who demands our gratitude and worship.

Creation is Unfinished
All that God made was undoubtedly good from the very begining, but it was not designed to fulfil its potential on its own. There were elements that God designed for humans to subdue. God's instruction to man to subdue the earth was not just to benefit humans, but to bring creation to greater maturity and thus lead to more glory for its Creator.

The Earth was Entrusted to Human Beings
God's servant-kings
A right understanding of the earth must begin with the truth that it was created by God. But there is another fundamental truth that we also need to grasp: God entrusted the world he made to human beings. Straight after his creation of man and woman, he gave them a clear commant:"Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves along the ground" (Genesis 1:28).

Some think this command in Genesis 1:28 has produced a contemptuous attitude to the environment that has contributed to the current ecological crisis. They believe it sanctions exploitation without restraint.

But it is a serious misreading of God's command in Genesis 1:28 to understand it as a charter for abuse. Throughout Genesis 1, we are reminded that God has created a good world. He can hardly be giving human beings permission to destroy it in the very same chapter.

Human beings are part of the created order and yet, as those uniquely made in the image of God, we have been place over the rest of the created order. We are commanded to "rule" over the rest of God's creatures (Genesis 1:26,28). This is the language, not simply of stewardship but of kingship.

As those made in God's image, our dominion over creation should be modelled on the way God exercises his rule as King of the universe. He is a loving King, deeply concerned for the best interests of his subjects (Psalm 45). He is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love. The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made. This gracious rule of God is exhibited supremely in his Son Jesus, who did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). The same attitude of service should govern our attitude to creation as we fulfil our responsibilities as God's rulers over it.

As the Creator, God continues to be the owner of all that he has made (Psalm 24:1-2). Just as the Israelite kings were accountable to God for how they exercised their rule, so all human beings, as God's kings over creation, will be accountable to him for how they fulfil that task. We have no liberty to do what we like with our natural environment; it is not ours to treat as we please. "Dominion" is not a synonym for "domination", let alone "destruction". Since we hold it in trust, we have to manage it responsibly and productively.

Two Tasks: "work" the earth and "take care" of it
Our responsibility as God's kings over the earth consists of 2 tasks:
to work it and take care of it (Genesis 2:15).

"Work" the earth
More than just cultivating the soil, this command points to a much broader encouragement to develop the resources God has placed in the world so that we can put them to use. It is not long before we find human beings forging tools out of bronze (Genesis 4:22), and after the flood God gives explicit permission for us to eat meat and fish (Genesis 9:2-3). We are encouraged to work and develop the land.

"Take care" of it
But we are also to "take care" of the earth. God is not giving us a free hand to do what we want with his creation. We are to exercise a responsible dominion, ensuring that we do not just develop the earth and its resources, but also conserve it.

The earth will be redeemed by Christ
Conservation attempts to preserve what nature we have left. But what can we do about the depleted forests, the melting ice-caps, the animals hunted to extinction, the fatally polluted water-tables, the exhausted earth? What can we do about that? It seems that nothing we can do can reinstate the whole of nature to its original state. Everything seems irreversibly contaminated.

But we should not fear. The whole of nature will be redeemed by Christ.

Many Christians have a sub-biblical view of their own salvation. They imagine that it is limited to our "souls" or "spirits". Their vision of heaven is of an insubstantial place inhabited by immaterial souls. But the God who made not just our souls, but out bodies and the whole material world as well, could never be satisfied with that.

The fall of humanity had disastrous consequences for the whole of creation. When humanity fell, the whole of creation fell with us. Just as our relationship with God was broken, so our relationship with the rest of creation was shattered. We abuse the environment and the animals. Animals no longer submit to us. The ground no longer obeys us and when we work it, and our labour is wasted. There are earthquakes and tsunamis. The whole of nature rebels against our God-given rule just as we rebelled against God's righteous rule.

But just as Jesus will redeem us materially in the flesh when he comes again, so the whole of creation will be redeemed materially at the second coming of Christ.

The Groans of Creation
For now, just as we long for the day when Christ will return in glory, so the whole of creation longs for that day (Romans 8:9). At the moment, like us, it is subject to frustration (Romans 8:20). It has not fulfilled its destiny. That is why the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth (Romans 8:22).

But that pain will cease one day when it is "liberated from its bondage to decay" and will be redeemed together with the children of God (Romans 8:21). God will create a new heavens and a new earth (Isaiah 65:17; 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1). Then, there will be harmony within creation: the wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together, and a little child will lead them…the infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest (Isaiah 11:9; 65:24). And there will be intimacy with God: the dwelling of God will be with men, he will live with them. They will be his people and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes (Revelation 21:3-4).

How should Christians live now?
Our ultimate home as Christians is this new creation. We are strangers in the world (1 Peter 1:1) and our citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20). But, until Christ returns, we must live here on earth. How should we live in the meantime? Should we be concerned for this present world or for the world to come?

The answer must be both, but it isn't easy to work that out in practice.

Some Christians imply that we should not really bother with this world, as it will pass away as soon as Christ returns. To get involved in environmental issues or to train to be a vet is seen as a waste of time (like arranging the deckchairs on a sinking Titanic). But this cannot be right. Our Redeemer is also our Creator. This material world has value, not because it is valuable intrinsically, but because God made it and is concerned for it. He demonstrated his concern for creation in the most powerful way possible: by sending his Son to redeem all of it. God's work of salvation is not a rejection of the material world; it is a renewal of it, as proclaimed by Christ's resurrection. It is our responsibility as Christ's disciples to be concerned for it too and seek to make it as good a place to live as we possibly can. The "creation mandate" of Genesis 1:28 still applies. We still have the responsibility to fill the earth and subdue it; to both work the land and take care of it.

But as we exercise our God-given stewardship of the world, we must be realistic. This fallen world will always bear the marks of sin until Christ returns. Only he can save the earth. Our Creator is also our Redeemer. While we wait for the glorious day when he appears to complete his redemptive work, we are also to work the land and take care of it in this way: to "go and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19), calling on people everywhere to turn from their sin and trust in Jesus.

One day, it could even be the day after tomorrow, there will be a disaster more terrible than any film can portray. The whole world will be destroyed as God acts in judgement. But that will not be the end; it will lead to a new world, perfect in every way.

It is now our privilege and responsibility to warn others of this coming judgement and tell them the good news that, despite their sin, they can have a place in God's new creation if they turn and trust in Christ. The new creation is worth waiting for. All God's people will be there, not just as souls, but with physical bodies in a physical place.

In that day, says the prophet Isaiah, "You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst out in song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands" (Isaiah 52:12), as the whole creation joins in the worship of God, its great Creator and Redeemer.

"God's Big Design: Life as he intended it to be" by Vaughan Roberts

Ambrosia and Christian Love

Again, we found ourselves at Ambrosia, gently cocooned in strawberry sheesha smoke, lounging on red and orange silk cushions, sipping cold drinks, nibbling on shish taouk and pita bread and chatting. They've got the ventilation and service kinks ironed out this time, so we could lie on the carpets through the night without feeling as if we were meat over a barbie.

Trailing a vague sweet sheesha scent down Baghdad Street, we had a refresher of teh tarik from the sarabat stall before the drive home.

Boon Yong made a very good observation about loving people in this week's sermon on 1 Peter 1:13-2:3. It was a good reminder of how very easy it is for us to say that we love people that we don't really know: we can say that we love the world, love our country, love our people, love the church, love our bible study group, but the more we get to know the individual people that make up that group, the more you see their failures, their weaknesses, their specific sins. Even then, we might be humble to see that every single person is fallen and prone to sin, but when their specific sin affects us and hurts us, we might not be so charitable.

Yet, Christians have been redeemed by the precious blood of Christ so that we can now live in a right relationship with God and with our brothers and sisters. Brotherly love is the goal of our salvation (v22). So we are to love each other deeply, sincerely and earnestly from a pure heart (v23).

This sort of love is a very hard task. Don Carson calls it "Love in Hard Places". It's easy to love those who love us, think well of us and generally treat us nicely.

What about love for those who hurt us? Love for "enemies big and small"? How do we do that? Craig Blomberg points out that in Matthew 5:43-48 a recurring theme is that God's love never obliterates the possibility of his wrath. It is possible to act in a loving way, especially to those who are the victims of injustice, but even to love the perpetrators of that injustice, while still taking action to prevent them from continuing to harm others. But recognising that God will ultimately avenge all wrongs, and do so more fairly than ever we could, should keep us from taking such action vindictively or harbouring grudges en route. In his book, Carson also considers enemies from within the church and the situations that would call forth church discipline according to Matthew 18:15-20 vs those situations in which we should simply show grace, forgive and move on.

Carson opines that just as there are different kinds of love in the Bible, there are also different kinds of forgiveness. He distinguishes a Christian response to repentant offenders vs dealing with the unrepentant, forgiveness in interpersonal relationships vs a God-ordained role for the state to punish evildoers, temporal forgiveness in this life vs eternal damnation for the ultimately unrepentant.

But how do we even start to love those we consider unlovable? 1 Peter 1 suggests that Christians are given the ability to love even in hard places because we have been born again, we have been given a new heart and a new will. We learn how to use this new ability and gift by looking at the living and enduring word of God in the Bible.

There, we as sons can look at and imitate what our Father in heaven does: he causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous (Matthew 5:45).

There, we are also reminded of how we ourselves have been forgiven by God. The parable of the Unmerciful Servant stings:
"Then Peter came to Jesus and asked,"Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"

Jesus answered,"I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

The servant fell on his knees before him. "Be patient with me," he begged,"and I will pay back everything." The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. "Pay back what you owe me!" he demanded.

His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him,"Be patient with me, and I will pay you back."

But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.

Then the master called the servant in. "You wicked servant," he said, "I cancelled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?"

In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."(Matthew 18:21-35)
How can we not forgive just a little if we grasp what a great forgiveness we ourselves have received?

PS: To pre-empt loud grousing, I would like to state categorically that the latter part of this post has nothing to do with my companions of the night.

Miyazaki Madness (Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind)

Visited the Land of Watching Miyazaki While Nibbling Pocky Sticks and Drinking Genmaicha. Hayao Miyazaki was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by TIME rag.

Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind
Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind was Hayao Miyazaki's first work. The main character sprang fully grown from the mind of Miyazaki, an amalgamation of the princess who rescued Odysseus in Homer's "The Odyssey" and the eccentric princess from the Japanese book of fairy tales "Tsutsumi Chunagon Monogatari", written at the end of the 12th century, who loved insects and worms while other princesses loved butterflies.

Miyazaki's story is set in a post-apocalyptic world beset by pollution and poison. The remaining small pockets of humans scratch out a fearful existence as they can, ever vigilant against the spreading ecological disaster. The Valley of the Wind is a human colony more protected than others, with lush green fields, bubbling streams, windmills, and a happy community who love and submit to the royal family. But even in the Valley of the Wind, the plants, air and water are polluted. The king cannot help his little kingdom; he himself is dying from the pollution.

There is legend that only the old (read: wise, not senile) believe: that there will come a hero, a person clad in blue, standing in a golden field who will find the bond between humanity and the earth, and lead the people to a pure land. The wisest, most respected and well-loved teacher of the Valley of the Wind travels untiringly through the world in search of this person.

Like all good tales, the hero, of course, is real and much closer than even the wisest teacher could have guessed; the hero, or rather the heroine, is Nausicaä herself. Her compassion for the hostile insects, wisdom in dealing with them, courage and love for her people cause her to sacrifice her life to save them. There is a resurrection scene where she is brought to life again (wearing the requisite blue, standing on a field of golden feelers) and the Valley is restored to its lush state and better. For a more detailed synopsis, see here.

A Christian allegory? Hardly! In fact, Miyazaki is known to be anti-Organised Religion and gave himself a hard time for inadvertently writing something with so much religious overtone. It's quite amazing that someone so adverse to any sort of religious leanings should, in his happiest fantasy, dream up something that so approximates reality as God tells it.

In God's reality, there was foretold for thousands of years a hero, a messiah, who would save the world from the pollution of sin and the terror of judgement. When this promised saviour finally came, he seemed to be an ordinary man like any other. But he was actually the Son of God and was sinless. By sacrificing his innocent life, he restored the relationship of all humanity with God and the relationship of humanity with the earth. And now, those who trust in him can partake of this marvellous restoration and look forward to the day when there will be a new heaven and a new earth, when not only with harmony between God and us and the rest of creation be restored, but it will be even better than before.

Miyazaki's fantasy is good. That something better than Miyazaki could have ever imagined is already set in motion in reality is far far better.

*******

Miyazaki Madness, Ecology & God's Environmental Rescue Plan

All images from Studio Ghibli.
Shadow would like to acquire a diaeresis so Shädow can be cool like Nausicaä (without attendant butt-baring on mehves).

Mystery Moos

Casinos and cows. Passe topics of speculation now.

After much whipping out of digital cams and phone cams along busy roads to capture those vividly-coloured cow boards for posterity and loading onto Flickr sites, and the subsequent revelation that the cow boards were part of a campaign to introduce the new advertising arm of Comfort Delgro, Moove Media, people have resorted to kope-ing the cows for themselves.

In an amusing (and sad) press release, Comfort Delgro reported how a motorist got out of his car, walked to the grass verge, uprooted a cow and spent 5 minutes trying to squeeze it into his car boot with no success. In the end, he had to leave the cow on the grass verge.

If any casino debaters had any doubt about the greed that is common to all mankind...

Anymoo, 200 cows can now be legally and legitimately purchased by auction. The calls Comfort Delgro have been getting from people wanting to purchase the cows for their own "personal use and pleasure" sound dodgy. Must be those Holland Villagers again! ;-). Oi! We're not Scottish, lads!

Of course the cows along Sixth Avenue, bovine neighbours of the alternative lifestyled Holland Villagers, were seen indulging in un-public-spirited, anti-nation-building, non-replacement-of-population behaviour.

In any case, they must be quite unhappy. Duh. Let's not have any of that cowpat about being anti-gay/lesbian/bisexual. The obvious lack of compatible physical bits should have self-evidently shown that the Creator did not design these parts to be used in this way for maximum satisfaction. (Assuming that all Comfort Delgro cow boards were indeed meant to represent cows and that all animals termed "cows" are female.)

The Christian, Casinos and Gambling

Some months ago, we were having a casual chat with the CFO of a listed conglomerate on the Singapore government's proposal to build casinos (oops, "integrated resorts") in Singapore. He thought it made good economic sense "but of course we've got to deal with those Christians".

Did God really say…?
Most Christians have long taken the stand that gambling is a detestable evil, a hideous sin. But none can locate any bit of Scripture that expresses this view. Indeed, the Bible gives no direct prohibition on gambling. Nowhere does it say,"And the LORD sayeth unto them,"Thou shalt not gamble or leprosy shall come upon thy fingers; yea, even upon thy pinkies".

In fact, there are passages that, superficially, appear to give some support for gambling, for example, the casting of lots – the main activity of chance in the Bible:

• the casting of lots and the use of Urim and Thummim;
• the casting of lots to choose the goat to be sacrificed on the Day of Atonement;and
• the casting of lots to determine the allocation of temple duties for the priests.

We hear of a God who knows how lots fall, and Proverbs 16:33 explains:"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord". Therefore the purpose of the casting of lots (for example, in Lev. 16:8; 1 Chron. 24:5, 31, 25:8, 26:13, Proverbs 18:18, Luke 1:9, Acts 1:26) was to discern the will of God on an issue (hot potato! A discussion for another day I suspect!). No money was involved in these. Elsewhere, the enemies of God's people also cast lots.

So arguments about "lots" (or apparent activities of chance) can go either way: on the one hand, the Bible seems to leave room for doing it (for example, to discern God's will); but on the other hand it is almost always the enemies of God who use it for material gain.

What is gambling?
Andrew Cameron and Tracy Gordon suggest that all forms of gambling incorporate a system of redistributing wealth that embodies winners and losers. In the practice of casting lots, unlike gambling, there was no redistribution of wealth according to chance and there were no winners and losers. In gambling, money or wealth is willingly taken from one or many and given to another or to a few. There is always at least one loser, and in the case of lotteries or lotto there are many losers.

Is it just a game?
When does a game become gambling? Game theorist Roger Caillois says that games are corrupted when the very real boundary of imagination that defines their terrain and structure is violated. Gambling, he says, is always the murder of a game, because gambling violates the God-created playfulness of the game world, and enslaves fun in the straitjacket of money.

We can watch the way reality changes before our eyes when we stop betting for monopoly money (where the game is constrained) and start to bet with real money (because money acts as a conduit between the game world and the real world).

So is the problem with gambling the money involved?
Phillip Jensen writes:"Money. We're to enjoy it, but not to love it. There is nothing wrong with being rich, but wealth is a great snare. We are to receive all good things with thanksgiving, but at the same time build up our riches in heaven. It seems that a right attitude towards wealth is a constant balancing act between extremes, and there is no one level of wealth which is ideal; being rich may lead to self-satisfaction, being poor might make you resentful. How on earth are we to know whether we have the right, Christian attitude towards money?

"As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life" (1 Tim 6:17-19).

The passage above from 1 Timothy 6 is a good place to start talking about riches, for here we have encapsulated the great blessings and the great dangers of wealth. Wealth does tempt us to be haughty. Wealth means other people will serve us; and it is very natural to become arrogant towards others when you know they'll do whatever you want. Wealth generates confidence, for it seems as if you will always be safe. Banks, insurance agencies and financial management companies all tell us the same thing: wealth is the way to make the future secure, so you can have peace of mind as well as comfort now.

In fact wealth does not give security, for it can disappear overnight, as survivors of stock market crashes can testify. All wealth, whether inherited or earned, is a gift. The family into which you were born, the economy, the time in history—all these are a gift from God. At this time in history, to be born into an Australian family means the possibility of a wealth not even dreamed of by most Afghan families.

But wealth is not wrong; God provides it to be enjoyed. This is part of using wealth well—as is being generous and using wealth to store up treasures in heaven. The last point is crucial: whether we are rich or poor materially, our real wealth is spiritual. That is the wealth we should value; that is the wealth on which we should judge ourselves. That is the wealth that matters. And in having this attitude towards money, Christians are at odds with the atheistic world, and also with other religions.

Material realism but not materialism
The secular world is materialistic. It believes philosophically that this life and this physical universe is all there is; and so it is not surprising that it preaches a doctrine of amassing material wealth. What else is there? There is no other ultimate justification, no other reward, nothing else worth having. The best we can have is material comfort, so we might as well devote everything towards that end.

It is an entirely self-centred view, and for that reason it is terribly anti-social. Westerners care about the country's economy only because it affects their own wealth. Other people's interests might be addressed to the extent that together we can all create more wealth for ourselves; but other people do not really matter. There is a story circulating that some American business people, on seeing the planes crash into the World Trade Centre, reached for their telephones to sell shares. Whether or not this is true, the sad thing is we can well believe it could be true. We can easily imagine people whose immediate attitude to disaster is to think of how it affects their money. We can easily imagine it, because we could do it, too.

Christianity is not the only religion to oppose this self-centred materialism, but it does it in an unusual way. Buddhism and the philosophies of Hinduism, for instance, are anti-materialist both philosophically as well as practically. Their doctrines teach that this physical world is not just passing, it is essentially an illusion—an evil illusion. Reality is found when the illusion of material existence can be overcome. This is done through denial, through asceticism and meditation. The physical world must be rejected entirely.

Christians, however, believe in creation. The material world is good, because God created it to be good. It is the doctrine of demons to reject the material world, to live in asceticism and denial of the generous gifts God gives us. Material things are good. Stereos and big houses and harbour views are good. Large salaries are good. It is better to be rich than poor, it is better to have food and clothes and beautiful things than to be without them. Poverty is not a godly state and money is not the root of all evil—although the non-Christian world generally thinks that we preach that.

No, the love of money is the root of all evil. You cannot serve both money and God. In serving God, however, money is a great thing to have. It is useful to consider the advice given to the exiles in Babylon, in Jeremiah 29:1-9. Build houses and live in them, God told them. Plant gardens and eat their produce, marry and have families. Even more, seek the welfare of the city and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.

We are in exile, in the spiritual Babylon while we wait to get into the Promised Land, our spiritual Jerusalem. We should never forget Jerusalem; but while we are here, we should go about the business of living. The exiles in Babylon were tempted in two directions: to undermine Babylon as the enemy, or to enjoy living there so much they forgot Jerusalem. God told them to do neither. We have exactly the same two temptations: denial of this world or denial of the next. Well, in theory we do. Most middle-class Western Christians are in no danger of asceticism. Our danger is all the other way.

Paul tells us, in Philippians 4:11-13, that he has learned the secret of facing both plenty and hunger. With the power of God, he has learned to overcome the temptations of both. He has learned not to covet, which is the real evil at the heart of both riches and poverty. He has learned not to envy his neighbour, not to live in enmity with others who might have more. He has learned by the power of God to be content. How might we learn the same thing? How can we beware of the greed in our hearts?

The rule is simple: don't covet—but the material circumstances that go with coveting can be anything from billionaire-hood to utter poverty. Just about any action, from buying a lolly to selling a mansion can be done in a greedy manner—or a godly one. It is up to us to examine our own hearts."

What's the deal with gambling then?
Covetousness
Phillip continues,"The basic rule for Christians is, no gambling. This is not because there is anything inherently bad about games of chance—but then, the essence of gambling is not chance, but covetousness. Gambling is wanting something for nothing. It's wanting something that you don't have, that you want to take from someone else without paying for it. It almost inevitably involves taking somebody else's money. It doesn't feel like it, when the organising body orchestrates the money exchange; but the money you win from a lottery, or a bet, or a marketing competition effectively comes from the other people who also want the prize. If none of you were so covetous, there would be no prize.

But what about sport? What about winning a trophy? What about investing on the stock market? There are a thousand different applications of gambling, some of which seem quite innocent. What about when a company offers you a free food processor if you ring up and leave your address? They're going to give it away anyway! In all these things, the evil is covetousness. If you need a food processor, go and buy one. God is quite capable of providing you with a food processor. He can give you the money, or provide a Christian friend who will give you one. By participating in the "competition", you are encouraging the system whereby people are motivated by their greed to read a company's advertising. Greed is the evil.

Of course, some activities can be practised without gambling. You can invest in the stock market in order to support a certain company that produces goods that help society. Or you can gamble on the stock market, investing without caring what the business is as long as it will increase your money. You can go and watch horseracing if you happen to like watching horses run. You can even play a game with yourself or a friend to see who can guess which horse will win. That is still different to betting on a horse. No doubt every reader can think now of an exception to these claims. It is the attitude of the heart that creates a gamble; the odds are irrelevant."

Love
Covetousness is at odds with God's command to love our neighbours (Matt 22:39, Mk 12:31). Love in the Bible is a commitment to do good to others. For example: the fruit of the Spirit is love (Gal 5:22). Love should bear the burdens of others (Gal 6:2). Love is to good to all people (Gal 6:10). Love is sacrificial (John 15:13). It counts the other greater than oneself.

As observed above, all forms of gambling incorporate a system of redistributing wealth that embodies winners and losers. Money or wealth is willingly taken from one or many and given to another or to a few. There is always at least one loser, and in the case of lotteries or lotto there are many losers.

Love, being the commitment to the good of others is completely opposed to the idea of taking from some, the losers, be they few or many, wealth for which they worked, without any substantial return. The loss devalues the work of the loser.

Some may argue that the money paid out by the loser bought him/her an opportunity for greater wealth. But this opportunity for greater wealth only comes at a cost to others.

Again, others may argue that losers are paying for a moment of excitement and entertainment, and that excitement and entertainment are legitimate needs in life. But what are the participants excited about and where is the entertainment found? Is it not in the possibility of gaining wealth at a cost to others? The other-person-centredness of love baulks at this selfish practice. The impetus of this argument is greatly increased by studies that show a large percentage of gamblers are poor—the winners are taking money that many of the losers cannot afford.

What would or could motivate a person to participate in a system that indiscriminately redistributes wealth? With the exception of charitable raffles or lucky draws (discussed later), the only real motive would be the desire to be a winner — to gain wealth for self at the expense of others. The motive for gambling can never be the good of those in need. Gambling is motivated by covetousness, and covetousness is a condemning display of selfishness.

Stewardship
The concept of stewardship is threaded throughout the text of Scripture. The Bible does not have a strong concept of ownership. According to the Scriptures people really do not own anything: "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof" (Ps 24:1). Everything comes from God as a gift and is to be administered faithfully on his behalf. Fidelity in this case means using God's gifts to fulfil his purposes. As we have seen above, his will is that we love one another. And love does what is good for others even if it necessitates some sacrifice.

From a stewardship perspective, gambling as a method of redistributing wealth has a number of problems. Buying an opportunity for greater wealth through gambling is not good stewardship. The chance of winning varies across the different forms, but it is always low. The best one can hope for is a 50% chance in a game of cards with only two players. In most popular forms of gambling, such as lotteries and lotto, the chances of winning are extremely small.

If it is thought that gambling may be a way of giving to others in need, then it is not effective, since gambling distributes the wealth indiscriminately. It is far from certain that the poor and needy will receive the contributions of others and it would be poor stewardship to give to those who already have much. Good stewardship requires that we use our wealth in accordance with God's will and purposes.

Gambling also wastes money. Few gamblers ever make a profit. Most, over a lifetime and proportionate to their incomes, make enormous losses. Better to throw a dollar in the gutter than to place it on a bet. At least that way you will not be troubled and thrilled by the prospect of it turning into a million dollars and thereby be tempted to throw another dollar after it.

Self-control
Gambling undermines self-control. It is addictive. Many are drawn to the concept of getting something for nothing, thinking that somehow they will be able to beat the odds and come out on top. For some, the lure of the promise (which generally goes unfulfilled) becomes all-consuming, so that gambling becomes an emotional problem with fatal consequences. It creates a craving for more gambling. Many lose their possessions, professions, families and freedom through compulsive gambling and the crimes they commit to feed their habits. Just ask Chia Teck Leng.

Work to eat
Many Christian books on gambling include an argument against gambling based on the biblical notion of work. There it is argued that work is a moral duty for those who are able to perform it, and it is maintained that wealth and prosperity are fundamentally created by work, hence the commandment "six days you shall labour" (Exod 20:9; 34:21). Slothfulness or laziness is condemned (Prov 19:15; Eccl 10:18). This Old Testament perspective on work is continued in the New. Paul, for example, gave the Thessalonians this rule: if a man will not work he shall not eat (2 Thess 3:10). The idle are to be warned to settle down and earn the bread they eat (1 Thess 5:14; 2 Thess 3:11-12; cf Eph 4:28). Since work sustains the capacity to help those in need, it becomes a duty for those who love their neighbour.

Love is sacrificial and is willing to bear the cost of helping others. The cost will be paid in terms of wealth that is usually secured by work.

Despite all this, as a reason to condemn gambling, the argument is too strong for its own good. It would prevent the giving of gifts and the receiving of inheritances—both of these practices are given legitimacy by the Scriptures and endorsed by common sense.

Having said that, the nature of the wealth distribution achieved by gambling certainly could encourage an attitude of laziness and an unwillingness to work. However, it is more likely to appeal to those who are already lazy, rather than make them lazy, and the fact that gambling appeals to the lazy is not enough to declare it immoral. Many good things might appeal to those who wish to avoid work, for example, living on state welfare or the charity of others. Those who are lazy may use gambling to avoid work; work, however, cannot be the place at which an argument against gambling is secured.

As a system of redistribution of wealth, however, gambling is parasitical. It cannot exist by itself. It feeds off and grows on an economic system based on work. The Bible is right to encourage people to be engaged in productive effort. Gambling has the capacity to rob this work of value for many of those who participate in the practice.

What about local raffles or lucky draws?
Many of us who condemn the appearance of casinos on Singapore soil happily participate in lucky draws in shopping malls or by deliberately purchasing products we don't need or buying raffle tickets for charity or donating to the National Kidney Foundation or some other charity for the chance of winning a car or a condominium or an iPod. Do we take a consequentialist approach and argue that some forms of gambling are not harmful and are therefore not wrong? Do we say that the charity tickets are cheap or that the products which we need to purchase in order to participate in the lucky draw are of minimal cost to us? Do we excuse ourselves saying we buy them in order to help a section of the community and do good works?

In the case of lucky draws for charity, our motivation may be other-person-centred and therefore honourable. The economic consequences for us as an individual may be minimal and there is a good outcome for the charity.

However, this argument could be one of "the end justifying the means". That is, it argues that a good outcome makes an action or practice acceptable. But this principle is not convincing.

Hill suggests that we can see that the principle is false if we take an extreme case rather than look at a trivial case like buying lucky draw tickets for charity. If the government of Australia murdered Australia's richest citizen and distributed his billions to the poor or to any other good cause, this would not make his murder acceptable. The outcome does not justify this particular murder or the practice of murder in general. Murder is intrinsically wrong. Even a very good outcome does not justify the act of murder. The principle that the end justifies the means is false. If this is so, and gambling is wrong for the reasons outlined above, then the outcome of local raffles, even though it is good, does not justify the practice. We ought to avoid practices that are intrinsically wrong even if they have a good outcome (see Rom 6:1). This is especially so in cases where the practice leaves the motivation of the participants unclear. It will not be clear to us nor to others whether we are buying charity lucky draw tickets to help a good cause or because we might win something.

Testimony
Hill also suggests that if non-Christians see Christians gambling, even in small ways, they may think the practice is condoned in general. Some years ago this point was rammed home to a delegation from the Christian church in Victoria who approached the then Premier and objected to the building of a new casino. It is reported that the Premier pointed out that the churches were full of raffles and bingo. He accused them of hypocrisy.

Other ways to raise money for good causes ought to be found — ways such as auctions or donations.

Godless
Ultimately, gambling violates the very purposes for which we were made to live. It encourages not just the lack of love for neighbour, but also the distrust of God. Pagans obsess about wealth because they don't know nor trust God (cf. Luke 16:13). The sad reality of their greed and covetousness is their desperate sense of despair about their own survival, in their world without a loving and trustworthy God. Yet the very definition of a Christian is his trust in a loving and good God who is able and is willing to provide and protect (Luke 12:13-34).

Gambling also encourages the wrong perspective on life: it strongly suggests and implies that satisfaction and happiness in life is to be found in the jackpot or the prize money, things that will pass away and not God, the Creator nor the eternal things.

Responding to gambling
A church should never raise money for its new building or for missionaries by even "light gambling" (eg. lucky draw tickets, bingo). In raising money for charity, a Christian should feel very free to say, with a gentle smile,"no thanks, I don't gamble — here's a donation". If the event is a small, fun office sweep, the Christian should be free to participate if it really is just a game. But if it starts to "overheat", with a bigger pool and with people obviously fretting about the stakes, the Christian might do well to say "no thanks—this doesn't feel like fun to me any more".

How do we respond to a government that advocates gambling? Rulers exist to do right and wrong for a people on behalf of God. Encouraging gambling is against their godly mandate. Yet we are commanded by God to give them the respect that is due to them because God has appointed them. But we can and should also make our views (and so God's views) known to them in a godly manner through the proper lawful channels.

In the Singapore context, whether gambling will be the sole focus of Intergrated Resorts is something that has to be seen. The plans so far suggest that casinos will form only a small part of the Intergrated Resorts.

In any case, in casting our votes in any upcoming elections however, we should not vote myopically and emotionally but consider wisely the ability of the competing parties to maintain the stability and peace we now enjoy in our country, so that we will be able to continue God's work of proclaiming and preaching the gospel without harrassment or fear of persecution.

Some bits rojak-ed from:
"Chasing Fantasies" by Andrew Lansdown
"This Present Age: Our Struggle Not to Covet" by Phillip Jensen
"Should the Stewards Object?" by Michael Hill
"Is Gambling All That Wrong?" by Andrew Cameron and Tracy Gordon. The following statement is included in this post in accordance with the terms of use of this paper: "A briefing paper by Andrew Cameron and Tracy Gordon of the Social Issues Executive, Anglican Diocese of Sydney. To access this free weekly briefing, send your email address to tracy.gordon@moore.edu.au or visit http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/socialissues."

"Taming the Casino Dragon" by Chia Teck Leng, once the second biggest casino gambler in the world, now serving 42 years' imprisonment for various crimes committed to feed his gambling addiction.

Tanjong Pagar Walkabout

A few days ago, while waiting for some people, had a walkabout Tanjong Pagar in the fading evening light, without the excited crowds, constituency funfair, RI all-white get-up and baby-kissing routine.

There's an almost Malaysian food court at the Tanjong Pagar Railway Station, on the side facing Spottiswoode Park Road. Almost Malaysian because they don't have teh o ais limau at the drinks stall. Some Malaysians would be rather aggrieved if the food court was considered less than Malaysian due to the mere lack of maggi mee goreng (found in Singapore at Zion River(longkang lah)side Food Centre) or Ramly burgers (found dodgily at many pasar malams), but in the spirit of current bilateral ties optimism, no babi shall be thrown around.

There were stalls selling Indian rojak, mee goreng, mee rebus, sup kambing, beryani dam, nasi campur, prata, vadai, apom with egg and cheese and satay.

Intriguingly, a stall called "Fir Iqbul" had a huge cze char kitchen and mod branding, advertising "asian seafood cuisine" and dishes like "Killer Fried Rice". Doner kebab shops were on the upper storey. Also spotted 2 gigantic sheesha bongs but no evidence of use. Was told that the current "upgrading" has killed the previous al fresco charm of the place and taken away its soul.

After dinner at a restaurant beneath some HDB flats courageously called "Imperial Seafood Restaurant", the quivering nose of She-Whose-Tummy-Does-Not-Wobble sniffed out a corner bakery selling retro cakes:

Managed to pry ourselves away for more exhilarating spidey-spooling, bruised knees and fingerprint scraping.

Am sure we haven't even scratched the surface of the culinary treasures of Tanjong Pagar. There're the killer garlic chilli dishes at Silkroad and thai yummies at Thanying (apparently still ok after change of owners), Nana curry at Amara Food Court, Annie's peanut ice-kachang and the passe hoohaa nasi lemak choices at Tanjong Pagar Food Court, french at Andre, fusion at Buko Nero, teahouses, Maxwell Food Centre, Korean foodstuff at Koreana at Lian Huat...

Tanjong Pagar's a great place to live. It's also supposed to be Stephanie Sun's hangout. Which is an advantageous bit of information if you're a fan or, unlike me, you can tell Steph Sun from Steph Song, Steph Sung, Ho Yeow Sun and Sun Yet Sen...

Liquid Kitchen and Proper Perception in Persecution

Had a good lounge and munch at Liquid Kitchen, 185 Upper Thomson Road. The mexican chicken wings were tasty and there were blue and orange cushions to lie on and chat.

Very judicious use of mirrors transformed the claustrophobic floor area to a cosy niche. Newly-opened, the waitresses were gracious and eager to please. Clientele was eclectic, consisting of teenagers playing Magic, yuppies perusing fashion and motor rags, young families still in office wear and guys having a night out in loud hawaiian shirts with thick gold chains. We were informed that Liquid Kitchen hadn't officially opened yet and the launch would be sometime in May or June.

Chris (Chia) gave a really spot-on sermon on 1 Peter 1:10-12 (he should go for conferences more often, is always recharged when he returns!).

Peter was writing this letter to a Christian audience who were finding it difficult to live in this world. They may not have been physically persecuted, but they definitely sticking-out like sore thumbs. They were aliens and strangers in a foreign land (1:1). They were suffering griefs and many trials (1:6) and finding it hard to live God's way.

Peter wanted to put their griefs and trials in the proper perspective. He wanted them not to self-centredly focus on how much they were persecuted or how grievously they were suffering but to focus on God and how privileged and blessed they were to even know him.

Even though they had no merit, God was the one who called them to himself and God was the one who continued to sustain them as Christians, through the Spirit (1:2). He called them to an inheritance and he would also keep that inheritance safe for them until the time came for them to inherit it (1:4-5).

God worked through the actions of others to bring people into his kingdom: the prophets, the apostles, the preachers who taught and continued to teach God's word and the gospel (1:10-12).

And so it is for us.

If we think back past an obvious particular point of conversion, most of us realise that many people and various circumstances were links in the chains of our conversion stories: some first introduced us to God and the Bible (probably in the context of food and drink), some pushed us along by questioning our ideas and value systems, some answered nagging doubts and intellectual pretzels, others inspired us by their loving behaviour to investigate their God seriously...everyone is a link in the chain in the plan that God has ordained before the universe began to bring us to himself. It's not our evangelistic methodology or charisma or persuasive skills that bring people to Christ. It is God who is at work through us and through circumstances and also in the opening of the eyes of those who are blinded to the truth.

No one disputes the ultimate work of God in all this. But we usually just pay it lip service.

Chris gave the example of Hudson Taylor and gang: they were eager to evangelise China. Donations and missionaries poured in from all over the Western hemisphere. When they finally set forth and arrived in China, they fell to squabbling over which evangelistic methods were better, and things turned nasty and ungodly. Then, the Communists came into power and these squabbling missionaries were forcibly expelled from China to South-East Asia. All their arguments and methodologies came to nothing as the Communists clapped down on religion. Reluctantly, they spread the gospel in South-East Asia, their second choice mission field. Many decade later, the growth of Christians in the world is now fastest in China. Far more than Hudson Taylor and gang ever saw in their squabbling years there. And the people who are proclaiming the gospel to the Mainland Chinese now are the Chinese from South-East Asia, who heard the gospel only because the missionaries were forced out of China.

God is truly in control. And he will call people to himself in his own time, in his own way.

In our griefs and trials, as we struggle to hold on to the faith and feel that God is slowly but surely abandoning us, we must also trust that the God is in control, and that he who has called us will also protect us and keep us Christian no matter how far we feel from him. Our relationship with God is not based on our subjective feelings (eg. today he feels close to me or today, he feels far from me) which are disgustingly self-centred; instead, our relationship with God is based on the solid objective fact that Christ has died for our sins, and his resurrection from the dead is what gives us the living hope of salvation from God's wrath (1:3). We were as close to God when we first believed as we are in our deepest darkest moments of despair.

God has promised to keep us, and God has the ability to keep us.

Service ended with the Benediction, to be sung to each other to encourage each other:

Now unto him who is able to keep you from falling,
and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty,
dominion and power, both now and forever.
Amen.

Jude 24-25. Lovely.

Scrummy Decisions

Cheer on grown men violently hugging each other at the Standard Chartered Sevens at the Singapore National Stadium with mad mates, a bucket of cold beers, hot dogs, clappers, whistles and funny hats?

OR

Cheer on grown men gently hugging Boon Yong at his ordination as a pastor of ARPC in air-conditioned comfort at Singapore Bible College with polite clapping and a catered buffet downstairs afterwards?

Bah! What a scrum!

********

[several hours later]

The decision is for Boon Yong's ordination. Not because I have to do my duty as a member of ARPC, though there are responsibilities that come with membership; not to see and be seen; not because it is the Right Thing to Do.

I think it's because I love the chap (in a different way from how I love rugby) and want to be there at this declaration and appointment. And we're on the same team (assuredly not batting for the same team, just on the same team). This team will last for all eternity. And this is the winning team.

Even if the Reds ever miraculously recover from the dubious honour of holding the record for the biggest flogging in the history of rugby, I'd rather cheer on something that lasts longer, is more certain, is far more important and gives vastly greater joy.

Look out for the clappers and funny hats in the back row of the SBC auditorium! Not sure people would fancy a borrowed bevy of cheerleaders with silver pom-poms though...

********

Postscript: This is the song Boon Yong sang, to teary eyes, at his ordination: 有一位神

Predestination FAQ

Please read the post on Predestination first.

After many years of sometimes heated debate, realised there are only so many questions frequently asked about big bad Predestination. FAQ = Frequently Asked Questions, not GRA (God's Right Answers). After the recent round of discussions, thought it might be useful to list the common questions and what we think are the biblical answers. Please mail me if you have comments or additions (I should check my mail at least once a year). Cheers.

Q: Does God have the capacity to change the human heart?
God is in charge of the mighty forces of nature, and also in charge of human nature. He made us and understands how we function. If God were unable to influence and direct the human heart, the fulfilment of prophecy would be uncertain. In fact, in the case of the death and resurrection of Jesus, these things were determined long before they took place, "by God's set purpose and foreknowledge" (Acts 2:23).

Yet, at the same time, those who did these things were responsible for their own actions: "you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death..."(Acts 2:23). And so we read of Lydia that "the Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message" (Acts 16:14).

Q: Why then does the gospel message call upon us to respond in faith and repentance? If we cannot resist God, how can we be said to have these obligations?
Remember the power of God who made and understands too well human nature. His way of salvation is not to bypass human response, by to create the appropriate response. Thus he both calls forth faith and repentance, and he gives them to us as well:"So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life" (Acts 11:18; also Eph 2:8).

God enables us to decide for him, and we decide to follow God; we now know God, "or rather are known by God" (Gal 4:9). Our wills were in bondage to sin; he gave us a will that could rightly choose to serve him and so find true freedom.

The elect are brought into the kingdom by God's choice superintending their own, and the Bible speaks of the same person his own rebellious hardening of heart and God's hardening of their heart (Rom 9:16-18; cf Exod 8:15, 10:1). Thus our choices and our repentance and our faith are real and spring from human effort - but they are only possible because God enables them.

This means that we can never pride ourselves on our choice of God, or boast that we have been good enough or clever enough or wise enough to believe in Jesus. This would be a return to the old way of self-justification. On the contrary, we must recognise that even our choice of God as Lord is really his choice of us, neither can we be proud about the manner of our coming to God or the reasons for which he may have chosen. The very reasons for the Lord's choice have nothing to do with the importance, attractiveness, cleverness or strength of the person chosen (Deut 7:7-8; 1 Cor 1:26-31).

Q: Is predestination the same as foreknowledge?
The use of the word "foreknew" by Paul in Romans 8:29 has frequently led to the suggestion that predestination is merely the foreknowledge of God; ie. God chooses those whom he sees in advance will choose him, so election is God's confirmation of our choice. This seems to be an attractive solution to one of the alleged difficulties of predestination: the lack of human free will.

But this approach does not seem biblical:

• first, Paul does not mean merely God's capacity to see the future when he uses the word "foreknew". In the Bible, knowledge is often, as here, seen as a relational concept. To "foreknow" is to relate in advance, to take knowledge of;
• second, the suggestion wrongly assumes that the human will is free in a significant sense, and so does not do justice to the biblical testimony about the bondage of the will to the flesh. Our will is free from external constraint, and therefore free enough to be responsible, but not free from the sinful habits that are part of being human;
• third, the idea that our salvation depends on our choice of God puts too much emphasis on human effort, and so endangers the express concept of the gospel of God's grace.

Q: Can I know whether I am elect?
We should not be wary of teaching on this subject. New testament writers like Peter, Paul and John were quite happy to address their readers as elect (while in the same letter offering strict warnings about the dangers of falling away).

• we can be sure that no human being has acce