It might seem unfair to the blokes to dispense such a criticism, as if the sole obligation of the day and, in fact, of the whole relationship, lies with us. But since when hasn't that been so down through history from as early as, or maybe even before, the Middle Ages? The warring brutes back then couldn't pick up a fork in the court and the educated scribes would rather spoon their eyeballs than face the battlefields. But it was a special class of men - the literal knights - who were expected to do both with equal courage and grace. Contrary to what we believe, the term "knight in shining armour" is not used loosely nowadays, nor should it be referred to as just a metaphor. The reason why most men today can only put on real acts of chivalry one day in a year (though not a complete act at that, since it often only display the "meek in halls" quality but seldom the "fierce in battles" trait) is because they've mistaken it as a silly idea that only the ladies fancy. We think it's fake because it's unnatural. But as Lewis puts it, "The man who combines both characters - the knight - is a work not of nature but of art; of that art which has human beings, instead of canvas or marble, for its medium." And as Lewis knows best, any true art needs to be attained and strived for.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
A musing on St. Valentine's Day
This is a day in the year that is suffered either in silence or months in advance and, if the night pays off, days after. People who have a conscious cause for Valentine's, usually in the form of someone special, often see themselves planning and preparing for the execution weeks or months ahead (depending on the extent of the person's affection and, in this commercial day and age, budget). This is the kind of people, specifically men, who resolve to condense in one day what they should have been expected to perform the whole year through but couldn't find it in their genes to do: getting her flowers, opening door to restaurant and car, staring across the table with an undivided attention. It's become a day when the guys would say, "Here's what you've been pestering me to do all year... lucky I only have to do it once!" The fact that we need to declare a romantic day to commemorate a history of none of these is ironic and a telling indication of our (specifically the ladies') lowered expectations.
It might seem unfair to the blokes to dispense such a criticism, as if the sole obligation of the day and, in fact, of the whole relationship, lies with us. But since when hasn't that been so down through history from as early as, or maybe even before, the Middle Ages? The warring brutes back then couldn't pick up a fork in the court and the educated scribes would rather spoon their eyeballs than face the battlefields. But it was a special class of men - the literal knights - who were expected to do both with equal courage and grace. Contrary to what we believe, the term "knight in shining armour" is not used loosely nowadays, nor should it be referred to as just a metaphor. The reason why most men today can only put on real acts of chivalry one day in a year (though not a complete act at that, since it often only display the "meek in halls" quality but seldom the "fierce in battles" trait) is because they've mistaken it as a silly idea that only the ladies fancy. We think it's fake because it's unnatural. But as Lewis puts it, "The man who combines both characters - the knight - is a work not of nature but of art; of that art which has human beings, instead of canvas or marble, for its medium." And as Lewis knows best, any true art needs to be attained and strived for.
It might seem unfair to the blokes to dispense such a criticism, as if the sole obligation of the day and, in fact, of the whole relationship, lies with us. But since when hasn't that been so down through history from as early as, or maybe even before, the Middle Ages? The warring brutes back then couldn't pick up a fork in the court and the educated scribes would rather spoon their eyeballs than face the battlefields. But it was a special class of men - the literal knights - who were expected to do both with equal courage and grace. Contrary to what we believe, the term "knight in shining armour" is not used loosely nowadays, nor should it be referred to as just a metaphor. The reason why most men today can only put on real acts of chivalry one day in a year (though not a complete act at that, since it often only display the "meek in halls" quality but seldom the "fierce in battles" trait) is because they've mistaken it as a silly idea that only the ladies fancy. We think it's fake because it's unnatural. But as Lewis puts it, "The man who combines both characters - the knight - is a work not of nature but of art; of that art which has human beings, instead of canvas or marble, for its medium." And as Lewis knows best, any true art needs to be attained and strived for.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Thinking about thinking
I was happy today. At least for a brief moment. Four months into my job and I'm stuck with it. It's not the best job in the world but it does more than paying the bills. It makes putting off thinking about the future possible... even in abstract.
But wait a sec... Why do we think about the future anyway? Especially when it never turns out the way we expected?
That's exactly my point... Let's think about it for a sec... How does it work, this business of "thinking about the future"? What's the step-by-step breakdown of this mental exercise? We close our eyes, right? We take a deep breath and concentrate real hard, right? We could lock our brows if it helps while keeping our eyes closed, and try to think forward to a point in the future where... no, wait... we can't do that!
No siree, we could never think about the future. In order to think about the future we need something concrete that is in fact in the future for us to think about. It assumes possession of a definite knowledge of the future, which we don't have. It's a humanly impossible task unless we possess the omniscience of God or a late-night TV psychic.
If we can't really think about the future, why have we heard so many people, including ourselves, talked about it like it's a natural thing to do? We say we "think about the future a lot." Sometimes we even offer it as an advice for others to "start thinking about the future." But the most honest among which has to be, "I can't see my future." Which is not a depressing thing to say, but in fact the only true thing one can say about the subject.
I can't see my future, even as I try very hard. It's time I stop trying to do the impossible. We can't think about the future. We can only live toward it, moment by moment.
But wait a sec... Why do we think about the future anyway? Especially when it never turns out the way we expected?
That's exactly my point... Let's think about it for a sec... How does it work, this business of "thinking about the future"? What's the step-by-step breakdown of this mental exercise? We close our eyes, right? We take a deep breath and concentrate real hard, right? We could lock our brows if it helps while keeping our eyes closed, and try to think forward to a point in the future where... no, wait... we can't do that!
No siree, we could never think about the future. In order to think about the future we need something concrete that is in fact in the future for us to think about. It assumes possession of a definite knowledge of the future, which we don't have. It's a humanly impossible task unless we possess the omniscience of God or a late-night TV psychic.
If we can't really think about the future, why have we heard so many people, including ourselves, talked about it like it's a natural thing to do? We say we "think about the future a lot." Sometimes we even offer it as an advice for others to "start thinking about the future." But the most honest among which has to be, "I can't see my future." Which is not a depressing thing to say, but in fact the only true thing one can say about the subject.
I can't see my future, even as I try very hard. It's time I stop trying to do the impossible. We can't think about the future. We can only live toward it, moment by moment.
Monday, January 01, 2007
Resolutions 2007
It's one of those times again--to review past year's resolutions and make new ones. For someone who's only started making new year's resolutions, I'm pretty glad that I've achieved about half of 2006's resolutions. I'm now the proud sponsor of not 1, not 2, but 3 children in Tanzania and Colombia with the support and encouragement of closed ones. However I missed the opportunity to fulfill resolution 2, which is to visit prison inmates, due to two major relocations in 2006. And as far as advocating for truth goes, I still need a lot more work as well as courage to achieve.
A recap of some personal highlights in 2006:
Sponsored Hamisi from Tanzania in January.
Visited Hong Kong and Shenzhen in February.
Sponsored Daniel and Maycol from Colombia in February.
Left a two-year career in pharmaceuticals in March.
Moved to Australia in April.
Relocated to Melbourne in August.
Found a perfect nest in the city fringe in August.
Found a new job in October.
A long-standing dream was shattered in October.
Got a new speaker for my birthday in November.
Fell in love with Mini Cooper in November.
Found and read David Mamet's True and False in December.
Had Christmas Eve dinner with Aaron & Grace at our own house.
Got a webcam and a wireless keyboard as my Christmas presents.
Watched New Year's Eve fireworks by the Yarra with my mates.
All in all, a good year. Now on to 2007's resolutions:
A recap of some personal highlights in 2006:
Sponsored Hamisi from Tanzania in January.
Visited Hong Kong and Shenzhen in February.
Sponsored Daniel and Maycol from Colombia in February.
Left a two-year career in pharmaceuticals in March.
Moved to Australia in April.
Relocated to Melbourne in August.
Found a perfect nest in the city fringe in August.
Found a new job in October.
A long-standing dream was shattered in October.
Got a new speaker for my birthday in November.
Fell in love with Mini Cooper in November.
Found and read David Mamet's True and False in December.
Had Christmas Eve dinner with Aaron & Grace at our own house.
Got a webcam and a wireless keyboard as my Christmas presents.
Watched New Year's Eve fireworks by the Yarra with my mates.
All in all, a good year. Now on to 2007's resolutions:
- Continue to support Hamisi, Daniel, and Maycol throughout 2007.
- Start a novel.
- Go to an undetermined destination for a week.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Compassion committed to integrity
Charity Navigator, one of the world's leading financial accountability organizations, awarded Compassion its highest ranking—4 stars—for the fifth year in a row. Only 1 percent of the more than 5,000 charities they rate have achieved this accomplishment in financial integrity.
It is easy to get bogged down in the statistics of poverty. Each year an estimated 33 million children are born without any hope for a future. Thirty percent of children worldwide suffer from malnutrition. Nineteen percent have no access to clean water. Seventeen percent will never go to school. And the most sobering statictic of all—30,000 children under the age of 15 die each day.**
These statistics are overwhelming, but at Compassion statistics don't matter as much as children do. In order to win this battle against poverty, Compassion strive for excellence in all areas of their ministry. In the past year, more than 135,000 children were registered in Compassion's Child Sponsorship Program. Here are some other milestones accomplished this year:
Read about the story of Emmanuel, Ghana's first sponsored child.
**Statistics from UNICEF's The State of the World's Children 2006
It is easy to get bogged down in the statistics of poverty. Each year an estimated 33 million children are born without any hope for a future. Thirty percent of children worldwide suffer from malnutrition. Nineteen percent have no access to clean water. Seventeen percent will never go to school. And the most sobering statictic of all—30,000 children under the age of 15 die each day.**
These statistics are overwhelming, but at Compassion statistics don't matter as much as children do. In order to win this battle against poverty, Compassion strive for excellence in all areas of their ministry. In the past year, more than 135,000 children were registered in Compassion's Child Sponsorship Program. Here are some other milestones accomplished this year:
- Worldwide sponsorship grew by 13 percent, bringing the year-end total of child sponsors to 689,086.
- Total revenues were up by more than 18 percent over the previous year, enabling Compassion to serve more children than ever before.
- Compassion's Leadership Development Program helped 1,017 promising young leaders with their college education and offered these young people Christian leadership training.
- The Child Survival Program (CSP) rescued, nurtured and discipled more than 4,000 of the world's youngest, most vulnerable children and their caregivers. In the next year, Compassion plans to open 106 more CSP projects, bringing the total number to 172.
Read about the story of Emmanuel, Ghana's first sponsored child.
**Statistics from UNICEF's The State of the World's Children 2006
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Soft opening of Jackie's Favourite Asian Cuisine
My dear friend and housemate Amazing Grace reviewed a new restaurant in the CBD we patronized last night called Jackie's—namesake of the martial arts superstar Jackie Chan. According to research done by Aaronwe the Melbourne restaurant is the latest addition to the celebrity's international restaurant chain. While we did not expect Jackie himself to turn up at our table and make suggestions from the wine list, after the meal I figured that for the price they charge, the food falls short of the buildup, although the service was great and the ambience acceptable. Anyone looking to catch a glimpse of Jackie in Melbourne might also be disappointed as according to the captain, the actor is not likely to turn up on the restaurant's November/December grand opening.Pros: Great ambience, great and courteous service.
Cons: Average food leaning more towards a fusion/westernized menu rather than authentic Asian cuisine.
Jackie's is open for lunch Monday to Friday from 11:30 am to 3:00pm. Dinner is from 6:00 pm to 10:00 pm on all days except Fridays and Saturdays, which is open until 11:00 pm. Location: Near corner of Elizabeth and La Trobe Streets (Melway 1A H1). Reservations: (03) 9606 0055
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Introducing Daniel and Maycol
Daniel and Maycol came into my life when I decided to support two other children with Compassion after Hamisi.Both Daniel and Maycol are from Colombia, a country where drug trafficking is a serious problem. Common health problems in Daniel and Maycol's areas include respiratory disorders, bronchitis, and malnutrition.
Daniel lives with his father and mother. His father is employed and his mother maintains the home. There are two children in the family and Daniel is responsible for cleaning around the house. Playing with toy cars, playing ball games and reading are Daniel's favourite activites. Daniel's performance in school is average and he also regularly attends church activities.
Maycol makes his home with his father and mother. Making beds, running errands and cleaning are his household duties. His father is employed and his mother is sometimes employed. There are two children in the family. As part of Compassion's ministry, Maycol participates in Bible class. He is also in kindergarten where his performance is above average. Soccer, playing with cars and bicycling are Maycol's favourite activites.Boring plaster
I received a letter from Maycol this week and among other things he told me he fell down on the street in June and had a heavy cast on his left arm which was boring! Months usually pass before the letters get translated, forwarded, and delivered. I wish it hadn't been so long before I got the news, and it'd be another 3 months or so before my words could reach back to Maycol. But being able to exchange letters with him and the other boys several times a year does foster a closer bond between us. I have yet to hear about other child sponsorship programs that makes it as special as Compassion does.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Kids under fire
While every other blogger might have been vigorously pounding at their keyboard by now commenting on the Jesus Camp film, here's my observation for what it's worth.
As depicted in the documentary that came out two weeks ago in the United States, a Christian youth camp called Kids on Fire was underway in North Dakota having children speaking in tongues, weeping uncontrollably for their sins (which seemed to have been owned up to by scare tactics), and claiming the nation for Jesus by being soldiers for Christ who are willing to die for the cause of God. As one boy put it, "A lot of people die for God, and they're not afraid."
The film in dispute opens up an old debate on religious radicalism, an ill-treated topic in the public sphere. Now the issue seems to be aggravated by throwing children into the mix.
I think people at the Jesus Camp are seriously misguided to inject militant ideas into Jesus' teachings and then indoctrinate youths with what's not taught in the Bible to begin with. Pastor Beckey Fischer of Jesus Camp said she wants to see children as "radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places." Granted that's a noble sentiment, I would love to ask Pastor Fischer just how exactly does she intend children to do that. While Christian martyrs in Palestine essentially face persecution by literally laying down their lives to those who want to take it (contrast that to so-called martyrs who wouldn't mind taking other people's lives along), which I believe is what Pastor Fischer meant by radically laying down one's life, it is only silly for Christian kids in America to be ready to lay down their lives in that sense when the persecution they might get more than anything else in their own country is that blank embarassed stare of disconnection from their schoolmates when they start to utter religious babbles. Not unless Fischer intended to station the kids in Iraq at the end of the camp.
It is certainly easier to pound military slogans into the minds of little ones over the weekend in the name of truth and fun—which is a very strange combination by the way—than committing to the painstaking process of real Christian education, which involves critical thinking rather than propagation of religious catchphrases that could be confusing even to grownups. By the way there's nowhere in the Gospel accounts where Jesus was recorded as commissioning His disciples to die for Him either as a means or an end to their faith, which is what the Jesus Camp seems to be explicitly promoting to children. You can't really blame the media for equating Evangelicals with al-Qaeda terrorists when you have people like this misrepresenting Jesus.
It got me worried about the kinds of trash they feed the kids with at the camp, when a little girl of ten or so was shown going to a bowling alley and striking up conversations with strangers that begin with, "Hi, God spoke to me today and He told me..." One wonders if God has really spoken in that instance (see A Private Hot Line to God? by Greg Koukl). And you know you've really had it when children are shown worshipping in front of a cardboard cutout of George W. Bush.
One thing this reminds me of is the immense power of children to imitate. Left with no choice of better Christian examples to follow, kids will follow anyone that comes along and claims to offer them the truth. Rather than preparing children to advance the much-needed Gospel in the world, the Jesus Camp was nothing more than a circus frenzy with a serious role confusion that mistakes themselves as the militant Jesus at end times. Though I'm sure they really meant well, the effort is so farcical it's sad.
As depicted in the documentary that came out two weeks ago in the United States, a Christian youth camp called Kids on Fire was underway in North Dakota having children speaking in tongues, weeping uncontrollably for their sins (which seemed to have been owned up to by scare tactics), and claiming the nation for Jesus by being soldiers for Christ who are willing to die for the cause of God. As one boy put it, "A lot of people die for God, and they're not afraid."
The film in dispute opens up an old debate on religious radicalism, an ill-treated topic in the public sphere. Now the issue seems to be aggravated by throwing children into the mix.
I think people at the Jesus Camp are seriously misguided to inject militant ideas into Jesus' teachings and then indoctrinate youths with what's not taught in the Bible to begin with. Pastor Beckey Fischer of Jesus Camp said she wants to see children as "radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places." Granted that's a noble sentiment, I would love to ask Pastor Fischer just how exactly does she intend children to do that. While Christian martyrs in Palestine essentially face persecution by literally laying down their lives to those who want to take it (contrast that to so-called martyrs who wouldn't mind taking other people's lives along), which I believe is what Pastor Fischer meant by radically laying down one's life, it is only silly for Christian kids in America to be ready to lay down their lives in that sense when the persecution they might get more than anything else in their own country is that blank embarassed stare of disconnection from their schoolmates when they start to utter religious babbles. Not unless Fischer intended to station the kids in Iraq at the end of the camp.It is certainly easier to pound military slogans into the minds of little ones over the weekend in the name of truth and fun—which is a very strange combination by the way—than committing to the painstaking process of real Christian education, which involves critical thinking rather than propagation of religious catchphrases that could be confusing even to grownups. By the way there's nowhere in the Gospel accounts where Jesus was recorded as commissioning His disciples to die for Him either as a means or an end to their faith, which is what the Jesus Camp seems to be explicitly promoting to children. You can't really blame the media for equating Evangelicals with al-Qaeda terrorists when you have people like this misrepresenting Jesus.
It got me worried about the kinds of trash they feed the kids with at the camp, when a little girl of ten or so was shown going to a bowling alley and striking up conversations with strangers that begin with, "Hi, God spoke to me today and He told me..." One wonders if God has really spoken in that instance (see A Private Hot Line to God? by Greg Koukl). And you know you've really had it when children are shown worshipping in front of a cardboard cutout of George W. Bush.
One thing this reminds me of is the immense power of children to imitate. Left with no choice of better Christian examples to follow, kids will follow anyone that comes along and claims to offer them the truth. Rather than preparing children to advance the much-needed Gospel in the world, the Jesus Camp was nothing more than a circus frenzy with a serious role confusion that mistakes themselves as the militant Jesus at end times. Though I'm sure they really meant well, the effort is so farcical it's sad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)