One night I walked into a horrible scene- bloodstained carpet, one child crying with blood gushing from her head, children crying telling me what they saw happened, that one child has jumped on another and has brutally punched her repeatedly on the head. I was starting to get very angry at the "aggressor" for her violent behavior, as "witnessed" by her peers.

My shock at the violence at that time reminded me of the shock people felt at the events off the coast of Gaza where a humanitarian aid ship was alledgedly attacked without provocation by Israeli forces. People jumped on the bandwagon of condemning Israel for the killing of nineteen civillians. The people immediately saw the Palestinian activists as victims of Israeli aggression and understandably, they sided with the Palestinial activists.

This reaction was similar to the reaction of my kids at work when they saw their peer bleeding profusely, an injury that required fifteen stitches. It was similar to my initial reaction towards the aggressor-"she should be in jail", "she should apologize profusely to everyone, "she should be isolated for awhile."

Alas, the truth is not what it seems. The cops came on the scene and the cameras were reviewed that night to see if charges have to be made on the "aggressor". Here was the true story. The "aggressor" was sitting on the couch and the "victim" came on the scene. The "victim" started bullying one of her peers. The "aggressor" stood up for the peer who was being bullied. The "victim" responded by punching the "aggressor". The "aggressor", being at a disadvantaged position, stood up and in the process pushed away the "victim". The "victim" tripped and her head hit a TV stand. The "aggressor" (at least initially) was in a precarious situation and the injury was an accident that indirectly resulted from the "victim's" provocation.

We tend to have strong feelings towards victims and aggressors. However, my experience has shown that the role of victim and aggressor is not always as clear as it seems. I heard that police cameras are being used to evaluate the behavior of policemen. I understand that a group of policemen beating one person with a baton is most probably police brutality. However, there are situations that may not be as black and white. Consider a cop throwing a suspect to the wall. It is completely probable that the cop felt that the suspect may overpower him and he neutralized the suspect by throwing him against the wall. To just stand there and wrestle with a suspect could cost the policeman his life.

I don't think many people understand how is it like to have to subdue other human beings as part of their jobs. I ask those who does not know to give those who know the benefit of the doubt. When an aggressor seems to be very strong, a feeling of fear comes on the one who has to subdue him. The fear may become warranted at the first physical contact between the aggressor and the subduer. The subduer may feel fear for his safety as he feels the strength of the aggressor who is doing all he can to resist the subduer. Can we be quick in condemning the subduer for throwing the aggressor on the wall? Or tightening up on a choke hold? I think those who don't  understand the reality of having to subdue other human beings should try to empathize with the subduer.

In our world, sometimes violence is necessary. There will always be people who are determined to harm their fellowman. The scenes in the movies where the cop just goes behind a suspect and cuffs him is unfortunately not always the reality. There is the possibility that the suspect will fight and endanger the life of the cop. That is the reality. So please, when we hear these events of "peaceful" people being "harassed" by aggressive villains, let us reserve our judgment and be open to the possibility that violent action was warranted.  

I have been reflecting on the issue of freedom to exercise religion. I have been hearing about groups wanting to take prayer out of public schools (including the day of prayer) and taking religious symbols (specifically, the cross) from government property.

I strongly suspect that this drive to take away prayer and religious symbols is an attempt to get the supernatural (i.e. God) out of the public realm. Behind these attempts is the secularist push of the supernatural into the private realm, never to interfere with the public realm. Behind these drive is an aversion to the supernatural  (because of intellectual pride, lifestyle maintenance, negative experiences), especially the Judeo-Christian framework of reality, as manifested in prayer and the christian symbol of the cross. 

The truth is that what a person really believes or values in private will somehow manifest itself in public. A politicial who says he opposes abortion privately but supports abortion rights probably believes that the freedom to choose is the greatest value and should not be subordinated to the right of a human being to live. It is also possible that this politician values power above all and that pandering to one group will give him the power he so values.  

These groups that push for the taking away of prayer and religious symbols usually support their position by saying that the first amendment separates church and state. What the first amendment really does is to assure that one religious group should not have the supremacy and that people should be free to exercise their religion. The concern is that one religious group will be favored by the state. 

I submit that the opponents of prayer and religious symbols are the ones who are violating the first amendment. If a public school teacher wants to lead her students in prayer because she believes in a God who intervenes, she should be allowed to, as long as she does not force her students to do so (students should be allowed not to pray for any reason). To stop her is to violate her freedom to express her faith, and that is the violation of the first amendment.

As far as religious symbols, these symbols are built as an expression of maybe one person or a group of person's religious expression. To tell people that they could not build a religious symbol (e.g. the judge who put up the ten commandments in his courtroom) is a violation of their right to express their faith. Some may object that tax dollars should not be spent on these symbols. However, when we hand our money over the state, we gave it the implicit right to spend however it chooses.

Now to those who oppose the opposers of prayer and religious symbols. The first amendment guarantees the right of everyone to express their faith. Therefore, they have to be open to having teachers in the public school who express, for example, their wiccan faith by teaching students a dance to mother earth or something. They also have to be open to having pentagrams in government buildings.

Is this freedom of religion ideal? No, because it is not glorifying to God. We should use this freedom to protect ourselves from persecution but we should not think of it as the greatest thing in the world. Freedom of religion is a value of this nation and we have to respect that. Should that be changed? Ultimately, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, that is the goal of history. That would be brought about by the Holy Spirit working in the hearts of people, not by force. The work of the Christian is to pray for the knowledge (relational) of God (Jesus) to fill the earth as the waters cover the sea.

I recently heard on the radio that the proponents of intelligent design are shunned and even censored by their fellow scholars. The reason cited by the radio commentators is fear of the truth.

I don't think fear is the main reason for this shunning. The opponents of intelligent design don't have to give up their paradigms of how the universe evolved. They may have to be open to the possibility that natural selection is not random but is directed by an intelligent designer. This is a reasonable belief, considering the intricasies of this universe. One may observe the workings of the eye and it would be perfectly reasonable to think that the formation of the eye has an intelligent designer behind it. Things that are functional and beautiful usually has intelligent design behind it.

I think the real issue is contempt. For some scholars, belief in an intelligent designer, especially one who holds some commonality with the God of scriptures, is considered contemptible. People who are otherwise open-minded can be contemptous of those who believe in the God of scriptures.

How do we as Christians deal with contempt? I believe the answer is the Gospel. God does not value us based on our intelligence, beauty, or even morality. God loved us before the foundation of the world, even before we put our faith in Jesus. This same gospel also helps us deal with our own contempt. If we are honest with ourselves, we hold some people with low regard. This may be those who have different beliefs, or have lifestyles that are contrary to God's law. This same gospel reminds us that without God's grace, we are dead in our blindness and sins, and in this world that held him in contempt, he continues to seek his lost sheep.  

In the Gospels, it is said that if we are to enter the Kingdom of God, we are to become like little children. What does this mean? As I was watching how my little daughter was interacting with some people in the park, I got a glimpse of the antidote to contempt. Little children do not seem to have contempt. They will approach others and talk to them about their day, what they have, etc. This welcoming attitude is true even with the younger emotionally disturbed children I work with. This might be what it means to live according to the gospel, to become like little children. Little children are satisfied with God, they know that they can come to him for life and love. Little children are also willing to extend grace to the outsider. May we be people who find their life and their affirmation from God. May we be people who extend grace to those outside our circle of family and friends. 

I have heard it said that anger is morally neutral, that it is just a reaction to the environment. The morality of anger is said to be the way it is expressed. It could be expressed in a way that hurts others, and therefore wrong.

However, some recent reflections have caused me to question the view that anger is morally neutral.

1) In the story of Jonah, Jonah got angry when a tree that was protecting him from the sun when he was in the desert, died. God did not honor Jonah's anger and in fact, Jonah got rebuked for it. God told him that he cared more for the tree than for the people who would have been destroyed if God would have judged Nineveh. Is Jonah's anger wrong? I believe that it was wrong because his heart was not right. Jonah has really been irritable because he does not have God's heart of mercy. He was not happy about God's decision to show mercy to the Ninevites, and therefore, he does not share God's heart. Jonah should have been so happy that the inconvenience of not having a shade to protect him would not have fazed him.

2) I realized that sometimes my frustrations in life is more about my discomfort at not having my way, instead of God's frustration about sin and its effects. I sometimes get frustrated with cars getting in my way when I have to get somewhere soon. Is that frustration right? No, it shows the condition of my heart, that I value my comfort above all else and those who get in my way are subjected to my silent wrath. If I am humble enough that I am fine with not getting my way, then those frustrations would not have fazed me.

What should we do with our anger? Our anger should be a sign towards what is important to us. Our emotions, positive or negative, are gauges to our hearts, what we value most. We have to acknowledge what we think is most important to us, something that we discover by reflection on our emotions (why am I angry, sad, etc). If what is important to us is not what is important to God, then we need to repent of our lack of godlikeness. If our concern is God's concern, then we bring our concerns to God in prayer and listen to where he leads us, as we act on rectifying the wrongs that are making us angry. God is a God of mercy and our interactions with those who anger us should be characterized by mercy.

     I notice that government leaders have emphasized academic success. This is a good thing since academic success increases chances of a good career. However, I don't think educational success by itself should be the goal of a child's life.

    First, academic success in itself is not a godly goal. We should commend our children for the diligence required for to make a good grade. That diligence is commended by God, as attested in scriptures, and is therefore the Godly goal. Academic success may also have something to do with a child's makeup (or maybe environment), which means it is a gift of God and the child should be taught to have gratitude for that gift. Some parents who value education teach their children to study hard to become successful in life, success being having a good job, and a good house. Those are blessings, but pursued in itself leads to a corrupt and selfich generation.  

     This brings me to my second point. In building a prosperous society, what is often overlooked, is the importance of relational success. It is overlooked because many people would rather talk about raising our children's math and science scores, instead of making them better persons- persons who stick by their commitments, persons who show compassion, etc. Better persons make for a better society.

     Children must be taught to value other people, which is the key to relational success. People on the left and the right of the political spectrum has been guilty of being bad role models for our children. Look at how politicians, instead of working to make a better society, would oppose their opponents plan just because they are of a different political party. That antagonistic reaction to others show a lack of concern for relationships. Although it is good to voice our convictions, we must also value others with a different conviction. This may take the form of recognizing that the person who disagree with us has something valuable to say.

    The importance of relational success in God's heart is shown on the cross. The cross does not directly address the problems that our society spends time thinking about- the economy, health care, etc. Many are probably thinking, what is the big deal about God sending his son to the world? It apparently did not solve the world's problems. However, The cross did solve the problem of broken relationships, which is ultimately the root cause of social problems.

a) The cross solved the problem of the broken relationship between God and man. Because there is peace between God and man, there is hope for a better world, a world where there is no more death, the ultimate social problem. The biblical teaching is that those who believe in Jesus are at peace with God and will have life without end.

b) The cross solved the problem of broken relationship among mankind. The cross showed the way towards restored relationship. The way of the cross is the way of humility. The cross tells us that God is a God who is humble, who is willing to leave the comforts of heaven and give his life for others. That is the way to relational success, to follow Jesus to the cross.

A while ago, I was watching a television court show and heard a judge say an interesting statement. The situation was that a 22 year old man was talking about how he spends hours playing video games. The man asked the judge if he knows about the video games he was talking about. The judge answered that she does not play games anymore. The audience applauded.

Granted that it is not a good use of time to play video games for hours (it is addictive and usually sedentary), the judge's statement is actually sad and the audience should not have applauded.

Play is the primary means to connect with kids. If we stop having the ability to play, we would not be able to connect with kids.  I am not talking about just about playing sports, which is important, but using the imagination, as a child would. If we could not express our imagination in play, we could not join a child in his world.

If we are to influence the next generation for good, we must be able to walk with them in their world of imagination. You can learn something about a child by the way she plays with her dolls (how the dolls interact, how the dolls deal with situations, etc.). The stories that the child makes up tells us about her view of the world and we can be a part of shaping that view of the world.

Do you want to influence a child? Learn to sit and play with his toy soldiers, enter his world, and express your imagination. Do some interactive play with a child- chess, checkers, cards, etc. We will not reach the next generation by building a gap between the generations, excluding them and refusing to enter their world.

Recently, the CEO of whole foods was "alleged" to have said that Health Insurance is not an intrinsic right. As can be expected, many people, especially on the political left, was infurierated by this "alleged" statement.

This situation made me reflect on the question of intrinsic rights. Are there really intrinsic human rights? Is human rights just a societal construct, and that humans don't have rights in themselves? This question generates a long philosophical and theological discussion. 

I would just present an observation. If there are such a thing as intrinsic rights, does that mean that the human obligation ends at granting those rights? Can we wash our hands and say that we have done our duty if, for example, everyone has health insurance?

I believe that our human obligation is deeper than granting human rights, whatever those are. In the Judeo-Christian tradition which I stand, there is a command to Love your neighbor as you love yourself.  Maybe guaranteeing health insurance is an expression of love or maybe not. There is a verse in scripture that says "If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,but have not love, I gain nothing" (1 Corinthians 13:3). 

This verse clearly distinguishes charity work and love. A person who is responsive to others' needs, therefore, is not necessarily a loving peson. I believe that the essence of love is to treat others as an end in themselves, not as a means to an end. This means treating others well whether they can give us something back or not.

People who advocate for human rights should humbly acknowledge that their advocacy does not fulfill the command to love, therefore showing the need for repentance and forgiveness. The same advocate for human rights could be sexually promiscuous, which usually indicates that his love for others is predicated by the pleasure they can give him. How can somebody possess another person, presumably giving himself to the other, and then discard that person when she does not fulfill his needs anymore? His advocacy for human rights gains him nothing in the long run.  

I've heard that one of the concerns of some ethnic groups about becoming Christian is that it means becoming westernized. Many Christians retort back by saying that it is not true. Christianity is not originally a western religion.

I have thought about this issue and I have come to the conclusion that becoming a Christian really does entail going against your own culture. This going against culture can look like becoming "westernized".

Take for example an Asian person whose parents value affluence. The parents may expect this person to pursue a career that will be stable and high-paying. If this person, questions the parent's values, he will be going against the expectation of his culture, that children put parents above everything. If this person becomes a missionary, for example, he will outright be rebelling against his parent's values. If this is called being "westernized", then so be it. Jesus calls Christians to put Jesus above everything, including relationships with parents.

I am not saying that western values are more close to Christian values. Many westerners, including some Christians, will do well to honor their parents more, not just act as if they do not exist. Jesus, in complete agreement with the fifth commandment, values honoring parents. He critiized the Pharisees for allowing a system where a pledge to God prevents a person from supporting his parents. Love for others and Love for God are both God's concern.

Becoming a Christian entails a change in culture. This culture is neither Western nor Eastern. It is a holy culture dedicated to the worship of God and the living out of God's values. I invite Christians to examine themselves that they live in this holy culture. 

I was reading an article that was titled something like "Do's and Dont's for job interviews" There are also other do's and dont's articles in the world wide web.

In the "Do's and Dont's for job interviews" one of the dont's is exaggerating your qualifications, the reason being that the interviewer will not hire you.

I am concerned about this focus on rules. This is because following rules does not help a person become a better human being. What is a "better" human being? To know what it means to be a "better" human being means is to know the purpose of a human being. A good human being has good character, displays good virtues.

I am already concerned by the rationale for not exaggerating your qualifications. Is it all just about getting the job or not? Life is not just about getting what we want. If that is our main concern, then we are displaying selfishness and this obsession with following rules feeds this selfishness. There is a God out there who calls us to become people who display good virtues.

To refrain from embellishing our qualifications is to develop the virtue of honesty. That should be even more important for a person than getting the job. Developing virtue should be an end in itself and not a means to an end. On the other side of the coin, bad habits (embellishing qualifications) make it hard to develop the virtue of honesty.   

Why should we care about virtue? One reason is that it helps us be at peace with other people. An honest person do not have to hide his intentions and do not have to be afraid of being discovered. More importantly though, we must care about virtue because there is a God who calls us to virtue. He calls us to virtue because he is virtuous. God calls us to humility because he is a humble God. He was not ashamed to come down to earth and wash the apostles' feet. May we grow in manifesting humility and other virtues, thereby becoming more like God.

    A while ago,  I was listening to Rev. Billy Kim at this recent Founder’s week and have found one of his statements troubling. Rev. Kim mentioned Paul Yonggi Chou whose church boasts 700,000 members (I sensed a spirit of envy in Rev. Kim’s presentation of Rev. Chou as it sounded like he lamented having only 20,000 members). The speaker was exhorting Christians to have a great prayer life. He said he asked Rev. Chou how he got a church that big and Rev. Chou answered that he prayed many hours of the day. Basically the message is, if you pray more you will get more results.      First, I thank God for the things he has done in his life, bringing him to Christ and giving him his ministry. I want to commend Rev. Kim for his call for the American church to pray. Prayer is an act of reliance upon God and a lack of a prayer life can be a sign of self-reliance. The reality is we are always reliant upon God every second of the day for life, success, everything. Self-reliance is a denial of reality and an attitude that must be repented of. Rev. Kim is right to call the church to prayer. However, his presentation troubled me in two ways.

 1.     To commend Rev. Chou for his prayer life is troubling to me. Rev. Chou, by his response, seems to correlate his success to his praying a lot. Prayer should not be seen as a way to gain but a statement of the heart that says “I am dependent on God about everything, my life- my future, my relationships, everything is in his hands”. To use prayer as a means to manipulate God to make us successful in anything we do is tantamount to using God’s name in vain. Paul warned Timothy about some people using “godliness” as a means towards gain, whatever gain means. It is God who blesses by his grace.   

2.     Prayer flows from a heart attitude. This means that setting up more prayer meetings or even setting up more personal time to pray does not really solve the problem of a lack of a prayer life. Without that proper heart attitude that says “I am dependent on God about everything, my life- my future, my relationships, the life of the world, everything is in his hands” a prayer life is just an outward trapping and should not be commended at all. It should be condemned as legalism and it is draining to the person. I think a better way is to cultivate an attitude of dependence towards God. The person who has completely grasped his and the world’s dependence on God will pray without ceasing. He will be connected to God whether he is spending time alone, with a group, or at work.        

     The western church needs to be more like the third world church with its strong piety, its refusal to back down in the face of persecution, its zeal for proclaiming the gospel, and its strong stance on social issues (homosexuality, abortion). However, the third world church should not judge the western church as somehow wanting as Christians. The whole church has problems, whether it is legalism, antinomianism, consumerism, etc. Until the Lord comes, the weeds will coexist with the wheat.  When the eastern church looks at itself as somehow better than the western church, they are doing what the Donatists of old did, refusing to be in communion with those who succumbed to persecution but were repentant. The church, east and west, must acknowledge sin and welcome in its midst those who are repentant. This is the movement of the kingdom of God- the proclamation of the reality of the Grace of God in the midst of human sin.