Church, you are His bride and you're beautiful

I want to tell the bride of Christ this : you are so beautiful

You thought yourself dirty and unlovely, but the Bridegroom has made you beautiful

When you've fallen away, you thought you had to work your way back...

That's not true... When you cast your eyes back to His gaze and remember how He wrapped you in His tenderness, he wraps you again.

I'm not saying there is no need to repent, I'm saying its His love that drives us to Him; that inspires obedience. Its not our repentance that saves us, its His cross that willingly rescues us. Don't let the enemy or some punk tell you that you cannot return because you're in the pits... Our God is mighty enough! Who is to say that the cross is insufficient?! He is Loving enough and when He looks at His bride, He sees His Son's pierced hands and calls the bride lovely.

Remember the Prodigal child who came back with downcast eyes. His brother would have shouted and said that he did not deserve to return, his friends would have called him a loser. Imagine what the father would have done if He hears them say that!

Daddy runs up, in wanton abandon, grabs His son, embraces the child.

Did Daddy say "I told you so?"; did He say "you foolish child?"

He said "cut the best lamb, for my son has returned to me!" His son's sins are wiped clean because he is Daddy's child. The bride can come back... yah.... the bride can come back. My dear friends, if you're far, don't let the devil say you can't or you've failed completely.... gosh... Jesus is standing at the top of the mount every day, looking out for the scant shadow of a returning child.

Who am i writing to? YOU.... yes You, my dear christian who bothers to read this.

The christians in the prosperity gospel camp... yes you are coming back soon (i believe in faith it will not be long before this crumbles)

The christians in the apathetic camp, the worldly camp ... etc quickly come back!

Why write this?

Its because I've heard such harsh, unkind words spoken about the children of God who've failed. its because I think we've failed to love them properly or to desire their return to the fold. Its because I've seen fellow christians ostracized without being lovingly confronted about sin and the gossipers hardly desiring their return. Its because I know what its like to hear the devil tell me I've sqaundered my salvation and cannot return to Jesus. its because I see the adulteress woman staring with wonder at the tender gaze of a forgiving Saviour and thus I can say, yes! His love is sufficient! It can overcome the darkest sins, the most grueling of hurts and conquer the deepest fears.

The Bride should no longer be abused.

Every time I see a doctor, I am reminded that a doctor should purpose himself to ensuring that I live longer than him... if possible :P



That is valid, of course, within the assumption that the doctor is far older than me and that we bear similar lifestyles and workloads, so that the comparison is fair. These two assumptions considered, I am ever more certain a doctor can gird himself with this sacrificial motive with deeper assurance :P



Without dissing the medical profession quite so harshly, one does also have to consider the brevity of life a bit more seriously. We can reason that the greatest nemesis to longevity is brevity but that would be bad logic. Living Long is not Living Well, since living long could be living languidly. Likewise, the creature's mortality endows him with the desire - for his work and life to attain to an everlasting memory. As creatures constraint by time, we yearn desperately for timelessness. The threat to our meaning, under these circumstances, is hardly brevity, it is being inconsequential.

The realisation of Hope

Its quite impossible to be a dreamer without being an optimist. Perhaps one should even venture to say, its impossible to live without having hope.

When Sartre reasoned that the eradication of the eternal being left him to concede and conclude that only pleasure, specifically erotic pleasure remained his raison detre, he reflected the despondency of our hopeless generation. Existentialists, at the very least, are honest about a stark nihilism that confronts our flagrant foibles and base natures. They tell us that savages remain savages albeit the new tastes in fashion and technological condiments.

Whilst frank, I suspect, the existentialists have inherited moral and philosophical deposits since they too avow or disavow past arguments - all philosophy is a dialogue with the past, each desiring to uniqueness by breaking from the thread of conversation but invariably by doing so, repeating and immersing itself within the nature of this meta-dialectic. The existentialists are the abandoned children of the humanists and the nihilists. For at once, they believe that all mankind have been imputed with reason necessary for human advancement yet similarly they are confronted by the unsentimental Darwinian process of natural selection that recognises power as the ultimate arbitrator of survival. To illustrate this, here's what Adam Smith has to say:

"Man naturally desires not only to be loved but to be lovely ... He desires not only to praise but praiseworthiness ... He naturally dreads not only to hated but to be hateful."

Under the humanist regime, the intrinsic value of man was that he aspired to goodness. That properly nurtured under reason, he could unleash a Utopian world with or without God. Hope was to be found in man. The nihilist scoffed at what they saw as false idealism and with a mish mash of 19th century science, pointed that it was the aspiration to power that made man valuable. God, to Nietzsche, was a lid to the realisation of power (the same thing the serpent told Eve). Hope then was in our innate power.

Then came the Wars of the early 20th century, where Hitler and Stalin brought nihilism to their political conclusions - war, devastation and genocide were waged upon its wielders and with it the philosophy that preached power as the only binding denominator of humanity collapsed under its own base cruelty. The common uproar amongst men showed themselves that they still aspired to goodness from which greatness is indivisible. The Humanists appeared discredited for though man did appear to aspire goodness, their hearts were dark since they repeatedly failed at it.

In the light of the failures of the enlightenment and modernism, as the existentialists so saw it, they were stripped to pleasure. Aspiring to goodness, they saw no hope in it, suspicious of power, they knew no other alternative to purpose save pleasure. Reason had coherently led them here; But so had reason led the humanists and nihilists to their conclusion... why then should the existentialist be any right simply because it had not any tremendous event like the others from which its rug could be pulled from under its feet?

Here I think is where we see the true hopelessness of man left on its own. The humanists emphasized our aspirations and elevated us to goodness. The nihilists told us we were apes in a jungle and empowered us. The existentialists confounded us by telling us we were good apes who should enjoy our bananas while we live. All throughout it was man groping in the dark, elevating ourselves to gods and then degrading ourselves to primates. All his tools of reason, experience and emotions are as flawed as himself. It must doubt what it uses to even doubt. So when the existentialists tell us that eternity doesn't exist or the nihilist that god doesn't, it assumes itself worthy of discovering god but how can man so flawed even try? Like the rest, it was part of this long running dialogue of hopelessness and folly, foolish man pretending that its foolish tools could prove or disprove the majestic God.

If God exists, He will be known by His own choice. He must Himself decide to reveal Himself to us. All that we can ever know is via revelation. The hope that we have today, is because He has revealed His son and through His son to reconcile us to His everlasting love. That's why we can live today, because today passess away into tomorrow and one tomorrow will never end. That never ending day is good because our fallen nature will be eradicated. The aspiration to goodness will be true because the Lord who is good will fulfill it.

The argument is no argument, its a realisation.

God bless the broken road

Every long lost dream
Lead me to where you are
Others who broke my heart
They were like northern stars
Pointing me on my way
Into your loving arms
This much I know is true
That God blessed the broken road
That lead me straight to you.

I stumbled upon this song while searching youtube for the modern Christmas carol, "Mary did you know." I liked the slight country feel to the melody and before long, I had found the lyrics. It was splendid to say the least. Every breaking moment, every heartache, disappointment of varying proportions, points back to Jesus and leads us back to Him. And so I began dismantling the song at every waking moment, working on it whilst being in the shower and on the long walks to the bus stop.

Its a joy to know that the spiritual life is not an ad hoc experience, but rather the vast array of joys and disappointments appear to string up into a collective whole. Just yesterday, I was struck immeasurably by the account of the adulteress woman - quite about to be stoned. Scarred by the shame of sin and wrapped in perpetual disapproval, she had traded love for lust, honour for disrepute and already badly beaten, she was thrown before the Saviour's feet. No more than a prostitute, her accusers heaped the stones of criticisms and harsh denouncements against her. Holding rocks that would soon tear her shamed flesh, they inquire the Saviour's opinion, for surely, the righteous one will do what is right.

Jesus draws a line in the sand, arises slowly and lifts piercing eyes toward the angry crowd. What stories that gaze must have told. The sole person who had the right to cast a stone or any stone at the sinful woman challenges the crowd. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." What silence and deep circumspection must have swept through the dusty hearts. If the Saviour was to cast a stone, He would have to cast a stone at everyone present.

The people leave in embarrassment as the sin ladened woman is raised before her Saviour, and He gently tells her "Go and sin no more." You know, that woman looks alot like me, us, the church. And you know what, many of guilt ridden adulteress women are still around. Some do not think themselves worthy of hearing these words from the Saviour... Please, Could someone tell them, He gave His life so that she might hear these Words? Others prefer to stand as the accuser, the most comfortable position of all, accusing without personal introspection ... listen: you really are no better... yup no better.

The broken road, so chequered with pain ... God will use to draw her to Himself. Its a message for the widows and orphans, the hope for the sinners and depraved, the glory of the poor and weak. Its the message to His church, His dearest and poor church who at times has found the world more pleasurable than her bridegroom.

Oh Church, you've chosen the path of pain! We must Sin no more ... The accusers can do us no harm when the Saviour hides us in Love. Bless our broken road Oh Lord.

The banality of evil

Indulge me for a moment, I need to do some mental sums

Now according to Hannah Arendt, evil exists in two predominant forms, radical and banal. By radical one refers to the purposeful execution of evil actions. By banal, evil is conducted not so much because of evil motives but through the acquiescence of those around either by apathy or illegitimate justification. So lets take the German technocrats, or civil servants during World War 2, who conscientiously executed the policies of Hitler despite most of them disagreeing with the fundamental notions of antisemitism. In that sense, gross evil has been carried out by people who were just getting on with life, or executing their duty.

Taken from that perspective, can people be prosecuted on the basis of the banality of evil? Should one then suppose that being involved in an enterprise of evil, despite having very good intentions of national duty, is still invariably diabolical and corrupt? is there acceptable evil when one is in the service of a nation?

Of course prior to the question, one does have to ask what evil is and who defines evil. If we should accept a popular and simplistic dictum that society is the ultimate arbitrator, then German society by 1943 had readily accepted the extermination of Jews, having evolved in the intervening years to accept that such was a morally right cause since they not only elected Hitler but kept positively quiet in the face of known killings. Essentially this is the thrust of Goldhagan's famous thesis. However, this argument falters if it assumes that most Germans played a positive and radical role in the eventual decision rather than a predominantly banal one. Indeed the repugnance from the wider world upon learning of this evil and the self flagellation by the Germans thereafter, gives greater credibility to the numbing of consciences during the War. Likewise, society cannot repudiate basic notions of morality despite efforts by its political leadership to transform its tenets. As seen in Germany in its post war years when the full extent of killings was exposed leading to widespread repulsion and shame developing into a apologetic complex which hasn't left it since. Therefore what we see is that basic moral tenets such as the right to life are transcendental tenets embedded into the conscience of all societies regardless of creed or culture, and deviations from them stem less from radicalism rather than the banality of the wide and vast majority.

From here we can derive two very important statements

1) That there must be a transcendental moral standard since society will never radically approve of the execution of people groups without having the vast majority residing in a banal state. Like it or not, societies across the globe have significant similarities on the basic rights of mankind. It is therefore best and better to assume that the moral charter stems from our Judeo-Christian worldview of a supreme Being dictating the rights and wrongs of motive and behaviour and that He has imputed that into the hearts of all mankind. Every act of evil is therefore the result of banality or radical action in which both must consciously suppress the conscience.

2) Banality has as much a role in the widespread proliferation of evil as proactive radical action. Apathy and evil are best friends. Take the example of a recent road accident in Singapore in which two dying men were on the road and a passer by stands by the corner, watching them die without calling the ambulance. His excuse of minding his own business is positively evil. In that scenario, there was no middle ground by which one could stand. I would further argue that in our lifetime, most situations if not all are choices between good and evil of which the vaulted neutrality is simply an illusion and the manifestation of banality.

These two conclusions if brought into the existential realm would have a tremendous impact upon our daily lives. Enterprises that radically seek to do evil have to be stopped (though one would argue that from a nation state perspective, as Richard Niebuhr argues, there is a different standard since it has to protect its citizens). Evil as startling as widespread homelessness and absolute poverty to that which we see in our everyday life can be stopped. Going out of our way to show compassion and actively protecting the interests of those in need as well as collectively seeking to dust the cobwebs that deter society's moral imagination are means by which banality can be actively eradicated.

The problem of the "banality of evil" is much more vast and complex and I really don't want to bore, yet its existential solution is thankfully simpler since it requires Christians to look beyond their own selves and care about righteousness on a wider and global scale. Its alot about having the passion to take action. Slaying this apathy is part of the beauty that accompanies the gospel.

As is mentioned by Martin Luther King " all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing."

May we always remember this truism.

Cross

Since last night and into this morning I've been listening to the sermons of ravenhill and david wilkerson. Coming to the cross in the quiet of prayer, I found myself confronted by the bankruptcy of my soul and the richness of beholding the sacrificed lamb. Should this instrument of priceless sacrifice not pain me and rip me bare before aggrieved justice. Without this reckoning, I would never have known love. If man will not bear the scathing graces of hurtful cleansing, how can he ever enjoy the rapturous intimacy?

Once the words of "I have been wrong ..." came freely thereof, this time I said "Lord you have been right...," "right about my depravity, right about my nothingness" right about the deceptiveness of my heart, right about the emptiness of my justifications before You, right about self denial and humility, right about triumphing forgiveness, right about total repentance, right about hell, right about heaven ...." He has been right about me all along and I was confronted by a Holy God. The cross confronts relentlessly with justice I cannot fault and offers mercy I cannot deny.

I'll bear the cross with joy if You help me Lord, for without You, I will so utterly fail.